david_carnell

Bob - if you didn't find Frasier funny you may have to just give up and admit that you'd be better off just watching Two Pints of Lager....

One pint and one shot at each end does indeed make 4 in total. And strictly speaking it's 0.9 miles not 1. But I still reckon you need to be aiming for below six minutes for a win. Drinks in under 20secs. 5mins 20secs for the run. The winner for the first two years was a semi-pro marathon runner who used to sprint the whole thing at a frightening pace to give himself time to leisurely sip a pint at the end. I will be comfortably mid-table.

I would aim for sub 6 mins to win. That would include both drinks. Considering a 4 min mile is a pro standard and you have to down two drinks, I think the Barry Barry runners are a pretty impressive outfit.

As if I give a (e)dam.

We're all middle class now, right? I have a feeling trying to talk to a management consultant about workers rights would be less successful than trying to teach clay pigeon shooting to Helen Keller. And if you think that divide only exists on Chinese building sites you've never worked for the NHS. Or London Underground. Or the Fire Brigade. Or BA. It's not just manufacturing - service industries is where it's at.

Those Equity members are bastards aren't they, Bob?

DJKQ - you're asking a question that an average employee or member of the public couldn't hope to answer. How would you know? Loz - all I know is that I wouldn't want to that job for love nor money.

Your input is missed.

I would urge you to reconsider Benjaminty. People do not strike for fun. They do not strike because it's a hoot and a chance to stick two fingers up to management. They strike because it is a last resort and they are desperate. They strike because all other avenues of negotiation have failed and they feel it is a last resort. Put yourself in their shoes. It is not about how good employment laws are in their country - this is a red herring - it is about the fundamental right to withdraw labour. I would suggest that as a worker, rather than management, your sympathies should lie with them and you should respect their cause but a method of non-intereference. Do no ill. Your conscience will thank you even if your wallet does not. I know it is your view that the union is in the wrong but they will have balloted members for this action and a majority disagree with you.

Can I just point out that this bill will never become an act of law. It's a Private Members Bill that will not see the light of day but is a good excuse for everyone, including the media, to get their knickers in a twist over. Relax.....nothing to see here.

Huguenot - I think you are letting a recent thread, where you have had vehement disagreement with MamoraMan amongst others, cloud your judgement. I think you are right MM but sadly I see no way out. With descending into mawkish, rose tinted nostalgia I look back fondly on the forum 2-4 years ago and believe it was a better place than it is now. People seemed to be more interesting, less silly, less abusive, and the threads produced reflected this. Old threads such as yours or one currently in the Lounge about "splashback tiles" show what we are missing. I think essentially it is the principle of dilution. Too many people, whilst making the forum fantastic for the things you mention (buying, selling, etc) but it makes interesting discussion harder since the intelligent and witty voices are more likely to be drowned out by the shouts of the abusive and purile. Maybe I sound like some MCC old-duffer complaining about pyjama-cricket, (or 20/20 as I belive it is officially known), rallying in the face of obvious progress, but I know I'm not the only one. The roll call of the departed is long and honourable. I may soon join them.

A rather astonishing performance by Shane Watson vs Bangladesh. Headline figures: 185 not out off 96 balls. 15 fours and 15(!) sixes

I should delete those two posts as spam but for the enjoyment of allowing me to re-read Alan and Bob swapping home decor tips I'm letting them stay. See people - this is the nostalgia us old timers talk about. Alan and Bob - the Ann Ryder-Richardson and Handy-Andy of the forum.

That's just drinks for this forum. It isn't linked to any others. If you want to meet people from other forums you may want to post there.

I've got to the M1 near Barnet in under an hour before on a Sat at this time. Vauxhall Bridge, Hyde Pk Corner, Park Lane, Edgware Road and then cut through at Kilburn up towards Barnet. However it has also taken me over 2 hours doing the route in reverse just a few hours later so bear in mind you are at the mercy of roadworks and central London traffic. The other alternative might be getting onto the M4 and get out onto the M25 and then the M1 from there. A nightmare what ever you choose tbh.

[Adapted from an article by Johann Hari] It is a falsehood we are being fed. We are not in a debt crisis of historical magnitude As a proportion of GDP, Britain?s national debt has been higher than it is now for 200 of the past 250 years. Since 1750, there have only been two brief 30-year periods when our debt has been lower than it is now. If we are broke today then we have almost always been broke. We were broke during the Industrial Revolution. We were broke when we ruled an empire. We were broke when we won World War Two. We were broke when we built the NHS. Our debt is not high by historical standards, and it is not high by international standards. For example, Japan?s national debt is three times bigger than ours, and they are still borrowing at good rates. The Tories claim that, despite these facts, they need to cut our debt by slashing our spending because the bond markets demand it. If they do not obey, then our national credit rating will be downgraded, and we will have to pay much higher interest on our debt. But here?s the flaw in that plan. That?s not what the bond markets say. Not at all. Professor Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist whose predictions have consistently proved right through this crisis, says Cameron is conjuring up ?invisible bond vigilantes? who ?don?t exist.? Who is the bond market really punishing? It?s the countries that cut too fast, and so kill their economic growth. The last two nations to be down-graded were Ireland and Spain, who followed Cameron?s script to the letter. It turns out that cutting our debt rapidly doesn?t cause an increase in ?confidence? and so save the economy. Professor Krugman mocks this idea by calling it ?The Confidence Fairy,? and goes through the historical record to show she doesn?t exist. Cutting doesn?t create fairy-magic. No: it has a very different effect. Here?s what we learned during the Great Depression, when our view of economics was revolutionized by John Maynard Keynes. In a recession, private individuals like you and me, perfectly sensibly, cut back our spending. We go out less, we buy less, we save more. This causes a huge fall in private demand, and with it a huge fall in economic activity. If, at the very same time, the government cuts back, then overall demand collapses, and a recession becomes a depression. That?s why the government has to do something counter-intuitive. It has to borrow and spend more, to apply jump-leads to the economy. This prevents economic collapse. Instead of spending a fortune on dealing with mass unemployment and economic break-down, with all the misery that causes, it spends the money on restoring growth. Keynes called it ?the paradox of thrift?: when the people spend less, the government has to spend more. Wherever it has been tried, it has worked. Look at the last Great Depression. The Great Crash of 1929 was followed by a US President, Herbert Hoover, who did everything Cameron demands. He cut spending and paid off the debt. The recession grew and grew. Then Franklin Roosevelt was elected and listened to Keynes. He ramped up spending ? and unemployment fell, and the economy swelled. Then in 1936 he started listening to the Cameron debt-shriekers of his day. The result? The economy collapsed again. It was only the gigantic spending of the Second World War that finally ended it. It is working now. There are enough countries in the world trying enough different economic solutions that we examine them like laboratories. which countries have come out of this recession fastest? They are the ones like South Korea, which have had by far the biggest stimulus packages, paid for with (yes) higher debt. Which countries have fallen furthest and shattered most severely? The ones that tried to pay down their debts immediately with huge cuts. Indeed, there?s an irony here. It turns out that if all you do is fixate on paying your debt now now now, and so you smother your economic growth, you will end up not being able to pay your debts off anyway. That?s what just happened to our nearest neighbor Ireland, may she rest in peace. And it?s what has happened throughout British history. Professors Victoria Chick and Ann Pettifor conducted a detailed study of the last ten recessions, and they found that consistently ?fiscal consolidation increases rather than reduces the level of public debt as a share of GDP.? Think of it this way. It?s as if tomorrow you became so panicked about your mortgage that you decided to pay it all off in one year, by ceasing to buy food and water. You get sick, and your house gets repossessed. So debt isn?t the problem. Debt is part of the cure. The facts suggest need to spend more, not less, to get the economy back to life ? and pay back the debt in the good times, when we will be able to afford it. To claim that this crisis was caused by Labour ?racking up debt? is simply false. When the Great Crash hit, Britain had the second-lowest debt in the G7 club of leading economies. To react to a recession by increasing spending, and so keeping the economy afloat, is the only rational response. The real criticism is that they didn?t go anything like far enough, and now Ed Miliband?s Labour Party is now too cowardly to defy the false conventional wisdom and make the case for fiscal stimulus, instead promising merely slower, smarter cuts.

I would suggest that Care UK, a private healthcare provider who receive 95% of their money from the NHS, donating ?21,000 via the wife of the Chief Executive to Andrew Lansley, the Secretary of State for Health, would be seen as a conflict of interest. In 2008 the Lyons report identified a string of future Tory ministers accepting donations from companies and individuals that conflicted with their own portfolios. I think the fact that your entrepreneur got to ?150k a year should be seen as success enough - unless you are, to quote Peter Mandleson, immensely relaxed about people getting extremely rich. If I was lucky enough to be earning over that figure I should think it fair an equitable that I should pay large amounts to the Treasury. I'm not going to be going short any time soon. Yes, tax avoidance is legal but it is not morally correct. Efforts should be made to close loopholes and forces business to pay what it rightfully owes. Businesses always threaten to leave countries when different governments come to power - so did Jim Davidson. Sadly, he didn't and I doubt the threats big business make are any more real. ?15bn is the lowest government estimate - forgive me but having worked in defence procurement I'd rather trust the higher figure. There is also little indication that Morley & Poors would look to downgrade our credit rating if we embarked on a slower more measured approach to reducing the deficit. I would suggest Osborne's downgrading of growth is more of a concern. The markets seem jittery.

Mamora Man - as Choppy Minton says, there is no place for violence in these sorts of demonstrations. But I'm sure you already know that. As you will also know that the vast majority of protesters were peaceful. In fact my admittedly terrible maths works out it was less than 0.05% who were involved in any mess. As for the rest of your concerns....(with apologies for the fisk) Huge Reserves: No they're not Agreed Helping fat cat friend: No they're not Really? There would appear to be some private healthcare firms who will do pretty nicely from the Healthcare Reform Bill that coincidentally have contributed significantly to Tory coffers. Higher taxes: The "rich" (earners on more than ?100K) are already taxed at a 61% marginal rate - higher levels will not generate significant sums (if at all) I'm unsure on this. My instinct is to suggest that the "rich" (your quotes) could probably pay more, but in the current economic climate I think there is a need to stimulate growth and for the time being this would not be well served by tax raises. Robin Hood tax: Will drive business overseas Do you have evidence to suggest this or is it a hunch? I'd be more inclined to focus on the large scale tax-avoidance by large companies costing billions every year, however. Cancel Trident: Might save ?500m a year Other figures have put the cost at closer to ?3bn a year - not an inconsiderable chunk of change. I don't think it should be off the table. Oh and too far, too fast.

Nice caveat ????. If we ignored who those questions were from and the fact that debates by these organisations descend into chaos, then the questions being asked are pretty valid ones. Rory Stewart MP last night on BBC QT put it succinctly in that we need to take a long hard look at what we want to achieve in the world. Are we really prepared to commit the resources to try and maintain the illusion we are a credible world player? Or should we move to closer to the current German position of, essentially, a greater Switzerland - make the country a sound business and leave foreign affairs to others? You can't expect to conduct things like strategic defence reviews before you even know what you want to achieve. Stewart said, unsurprisingly given his background, that he would prefer resources directed to intelligence, diplomats at the FCO and experts (Arabists, Kremlinologists etc) rather than to big boys toys in the armed forces. But spending less than the current 2% of GDP on defence will be unpopular with the MoD, the armed forces and the Telegrpah/Times/tabloid press.

If I genuinely thought that the world's wealth was being more equally distributed I'd be quite content but I doubt that's happening. I guess you have burgeoning middle-classes in India and China but vast swathes still remain brutally poor. As to what Gideon could have done differently? Not sure....do you meanwhat I would have liked to have done or what he could do that would be politically viable for a Tory-led government? I suspect you already know the answer to the former and I've not got the energy on a Friday after Budget Week (it's not fun in a central govt press office I can tell you) to have the same argument with you again.

I think Osborne has pulled off the most spectacular trick. He seems to have managed to produce a budget that has pleased almost no one for completely different reasons. Cunning, George. Very cunning.

Jeremy I'd dispute it is necessarily "more" than a NFZ. If you don't destroy ground forces and anti-aircraft installations (radar stations, artillery etc) then you leave your air forces vulnerable. Rumours persist of enforcing a retreat of Gadaffi's forces far enough west to allow for some sort of peaceful partition inc. the establishment of a "free" Libya.

Seems nowhere is later than 19:00. See here.

Cook roast potatoes in it. Not as good as goose/duck fat but not bad. Keeps forever.

A stick.