Re: Crossrail under Threat if Tories win next Election
1506
> From today's London Evening Standard:
>
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23685571-details/Cross...
>
> Crossrail could be delayed at the 11th hour if the Conservatives win
> power, it emerged today.
>
> They are said to have made the £16billion cross-London rail scheme a
> possible savings target.
>
> The main construction work on Crossrail is due to start late next
> year, after the general election expected in May.
>
> However, fears are now growing that David Cameron could halt the rail
> project as Margaret Thatcher did following the recession in the early
> Nineties.
>
> Crossrail was given the go-ahead in 1990, but four years later the
> Treasury decided it could not afford both it and the Jubilee Line
> extension.
>
> Tory leader Mr Cameron has vowed not to shy away from tough decisions
> in order to cut Britain's ballooning debt mountain.
>
> Conservative sources today stressed that no schemes had been ruled out
> from any cost-cutting measures - but shadow transport secretary
> Theresa Villiers said there was no "current" review of Crossrail,
> sparking confusion over the Tory stance.
>
> London Mayor Boris Johnson defended the importance of the new rail
> line, which will run from Maidenhead and Heathrow in the west through
> tunnels under central London and out to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in
> the east.
>
> "This is one of those moments in politics when you reverse the usual
> rule and get in a hole - and keep on digging," he told The Times.
> "Crossrail will make London a far better place to compete.
>
> "Not only will it deliver jobs and growth in the short term, it will
> help to make our city far more liveable and more attractive as a place
> to come and invest."
>
> However, the row over businesses in London being asked to pay a new
> levy to raise £3.5billion to fund Crossrail escalated today.
>
> Mr Johnson has clashed with Communities Secretary Hazel Blears after
> demanding a formal exemption from having to poll firms in the capital
> on the levy. The Business Rate Supplements Bill, currently going
> through Parliament, forces local authorities to ballot firms if they
> are being asked to pay more than a third towards a development.
>
> London businesses are not being asked to contribute such a large share
> for Crossrail, but Mr Johnson is concerned that business leaders could
> launch legal action to force him to order a vote.
>
> Chancellor Alistair Darling and Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon are
> backing the Mayor's stance but Ms Blears's department is insisting
> that it cannot have "one rule for London and one rule for the rest of
> the country".
>
> A senior Whitehall source said: "The fear is that unless there is a
> specific exemption then the rules as they apply to Crossrail could be
> subject to a judicial review.
>
> "We accept the point that Boris, in the year before a mayoral
> election, and just after a major recession, could not be expected to
> win a ballot of businesses on Crossrail."
If this is true, it is very bad news. London needs Crossrail.
darkprince66
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's time to face the facts. Whoever wins the next election, there are
going to be some pretty hefty tax rises and major cost cutting. This
may or not affect Crossrail, but the fact remains that Brown and the
bankers have bankrupted us and we (you, me, us) are going to have to
foot the bill.
Rich
alland...@live.co.uk
> If this is true, it is very bad news. London needs Crossrail.
>
Do the maths, it’s either stuff like this that gets cut or people have
to start going without hip operations.
The Tories have realised the mood of the electorate is such that they
want to know what the politicians are going to do about our debts.
The government meanwhile are stuck like rabbits staring into the
headlights pretending depressions don’t have to be painful and it will
business as usual, well at least until after an election that is.
Vince Cable on the Daily Politics this afternoon said that, “Because
of the recession, tax revenues have fallen so much they are now lower
than when Macmillan was PM, we’ve become a low tax economy by
default.”
So, tax rises are just not an option indeed that 50p rate increase
won’t even scratch the surface of the public finances deficits, even
if they can find enough people still able to pay it.
Martin Edwards
> On 5 May, 19:08, 1506 <adrian_auerhud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 5, 10:58 am, ibilo...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> From today's London Evening Standard:
>>> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23685571-details/Cross...
>>> Crossrail could be delayed at the 11th hour if the Conservatives win
>>> power, it emerged today.
Perhaps capitalism has finally collapsed under the weight of its own
contradictions. Marx never said it would happen in his lifetime.
--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From �Rollerball�
Martin Edwards
> to start going without hip operations.
>
> The Tories have realised the mood of the electorate is such that they
> want to know what the politicians are going to do about our debts.
>
> The government meanwhile are stuck like rabbits staring into the
> business as usual, well at least until after an election that is.
>
> of the recession, tax revenues have fallen so much they are now lower
> default.�
>
> So, tax rises are just not an option indeed that 50p rate increase
> if they can find enough people still able to pay it.
Switchman is sleeping, train 102,
It's on the wrong track and its heading for you. -The Grateful Dead.
alland...@live.co.uk
> Perhaps capitalism has finally collapsed under the weight of its own
> contradictions. Marx never said it would happen in his lifetime.
>
Quite a few on the left have emerged recently, convinced they've just
witnessed the death of capitalism, and to say we told you so.
Even so, how the death of capitalism is a vote of confidence for
socialism and how that means we must start taking socialists seriously
again is quite beyond me.
You see there is another perspective that goes like this, that
capitalism didn't actually die it was just that Gordon Brown was no
good at it.
1506
No so sure about the death of capitalism, although it is certainly
hobbled just now. Free Speech in the UK is certainly in decline.
Jacqui Smith is a laughing stock, on Fox Talk Radio, in the US this
morning, after banning Michael Savage.
Mizter T
No-one in this country gives a damn about what is said on Fox Talk
Radio. The guy's an arsehole anyway.
sp...@johnband.org
Not allowing objectionable foreigners into the country has naff all to
do with free speech, though.
Since we don't, uncritically, give a visa to everyone who wants one,
there clearly must be some criteria used to determine who's allowed in
and who isn't. And 'are they a homophobic, racist, hatemongering
bigot, if Y then piss off' doesn't seem a bad question to ask,
alongside the ones we also ask like 'do they have a criminal record,
if Y then piss off' and 'are they likely to work illegally, if Y then
piss off'
--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org
1506
Well that is all to the good then. You should not have a problem with
Geert Wilders, or Michael Savage (baring the queer issue).
And, in the near future we should expect to see the UK export its
Jihadist Imams and their radical followers.
Tim Fenton
<sp...@johnband.org> wrote in message
news:c20ccef7-d440-4785...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> > No so sure about the death of capitalism, although it is certainly
> > hobbled just now. Free Speech in the UK is certainly in decline.
> > Jacqui Smith is a laughing stock, on Fox Talk Radio, in the US this
> > morning, after banning Michael Savage.
> Not allowing objectionable foreigners into the country has naff all to
> do with free speech, though.
Indeed, and the objectionable label certainly applies to Michael Savage, ne
Weiner (hmmm, wonder why he changed that).
And anyone who takes Fox Talk Radio as a broadcaster of record is not
dealing from a full deck.
--
Tim
http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net/
http://zelo-street.blogspot.com/
1506
> <s...@johnband.org> wrote in message
education is showing again.
It says a lot that you object to a conservative commentator, but have
no problem with Jihadist Imams and their radical followers. Is this
an indication of where you reside in the food-chain?
alland...@live.co.uk
> Indeed, and the objectionable label certainly applies to Michael Savage, ne
> Weiner (hmmm, wonder why he changed that).
>
Yes but objectionable to whom?
I find most of his views objectionable (that is once I realised he
existed - thank you Home Secretary), some not so, but, so far as I
know, they are not illegal views in this country.
Therefore, one is left with the impression that his views are
primarily objectionable to the Labour party and that is no criteria
for granting entry to the UK.
It also raises the question of where this leaves those who may share
his views that are already resident in the UK, especially with regard
to New Labour’s so called hate crimes that they would claim would
never threaten free speech.
Indeed, I can think of one senior figure within the railway industry
that very definitely shares at least one of his views with quite some
passion.
1506
Regardless of whether one likes another's views or not, the United
Kingdom promotes itself as a land of fee speech. I dislike holocaust
deniers. But, I don't for one minute believe I have a right to
silence them.
It is just as well I have retained my UK passport; I might be
disallowed entry using my US one.
Martin Edwards
On the other hand it was the trashing of industry by Thatcher that led
to our present state. It does not matter how long most of us work: few
of us are creating wealth.
BrianW
> You see there is another perspective that goes like this, that
> capitalism didn't actually die it was just that Gordon Brown was no
> good at it.
I didn't realise Gordon Brown was so powerful that he was able to
start a credit crunch ... in the USA. Amazing!
m...@nildram.co.uk
>Since we don't, uncritically, give a visa to everyone who wants one,
>there clearly must be some criteria used to determine who's allowed in
>and who isn't. And 'are they a homophobic, racist, hatemongering
>bigot, if Y then piss off' doesn't seem a bad question to ask,
>alongside the ones we also ask like 'do they have a criminal record,
>if Y then piss off' and 'are they likely to work illegally, if Y then
The problem is the USA is one of the countries we we normaly let
people in from without a visa so need a list like that.
Martin Edwards
> On Tue, 5 May 2009 11:24:01 -0700 (PDT), darkprince66
> <darkprinc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> It's time to face the facts. Whoever wins the next election, there are
>> going to be some pretty hefty tax rises and major cost cutting. This
>> may or not affect Crossrail, but the fact remains that Brown and the
>> bankers have bankrupted us and we (you, me, us) are going to have to
>> foot the bill.
>>
>> Rich
>
> right out of your country... which is VERY sad. (Throw in the self employment
> thing that bumps that up significantly, and it looks VERY ugly for someone
> making 200k pounds a year.
>
> Too bad really.. Andrew Lloyd Weber had a nice editorial piece on that, and
> its impact on the theater...
>
> Capitalism is being killed by governmental greed and spending.
Most of them are not creative or even especially intelligent: they are
corporate bureaucrats.
Martin Edwards
> On May 6, 10:45 am, "Tim Fenton" <timfen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> <s...@johnband.org> wrote in message
> newspaper of record?
>
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/edwest/blog/2009/05/07/not_all_brits_are_whiny_liberals_michael_savage
Kind of, but it is ultraconservative.
sp...@johnband.org
> It also raises the question of where this leaves those who may share
> his views that are already resident in the UK, especially with regard
> to New Labour’s so called hate crimes that they would claim would
> never threaten free speech.
No it doesn't. Just as the fact that we don't (generally) let in
unemployed drifters and people with criminal records doesn't mean that
UK-resident unemployed drifters and people with criminal records face
The ZaNuLieBore Gulags.
Tim Fenton
"Martin Edwards" <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FDPMl.42731$HC4....@newsfe14.ams2...
>>>
>>>>> No so sure about the death of capitalism, although it is certainly
>>>>> hobbled just now. Free Speech in the UK is certainly in decline.
>>>>> Jacqui Smith is a laughing stock, on Fox Talk Radio, in the US this
>>>>> morning, after banning Michael Savage.
>>>> Not allowing objectionable foreigners into the country has naff all to
>>>> do with free speech, though.
>>> Indeed, and the objectionable label certainly applies to Michael Savage,
>>> ne
>>> Weiner (hmmm, wonder why he changed that).
>>>
>>> And anyone who takes Fox Talk Radio as a broadcaster of record is not
>>> dealing from a full deck.
>>
>> Hey terrorist sympathizing pond scum, is the London Telegraph a
>> newspaper of record?
>>
>> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/edwest/blog/2009/05/07/not_all_brits_are_whiny_liberals_michael_savage
>
> Kind of, but it is ultraconservative.
Thanks for quoting that, Martin. It proves what I've suspected for some
time: that Adrian Auer Hudson is a fruitcake. A kosher fruitcake perhaps,
but a fruitcake nevertheless.
Brimstone
> A fruitcake is slang for a homosexual
Only in the dialect that is American English.
john.po...@googlemail.com
It was exported to the USA from some clever little boys from a bank
called Barclays in the City Of London. They had the idea of selling
bundles of mortgage debt. The idea was mixing good and risky debts
into one package on the understanding the good would outperform and
cover the risky ones. The senior staff did not fully understand the
idea, but it seemed good and the commission paid was good, so it
caught on and across the Atlantic with a larger market it snowballed.
sp...@johnband.org
> It was exported to the USA from some clever little boys from a bank
> called Barclays in the City Of London. They had the idea of selling
> bundles of mortgage debt. The idea was mixing good and risky debts
> into one package on the understanding the good would outperform and
> cover the risky ones. The senior staff did not fully understand the
> idea, but it seemed good and the commission paid was good, so it
> caught on and across the Atlantic with a larger market it snowballed.
Really, no.
1) the point isn't to mix good and risky debts, it's to do the
opposite - the process took inputs that were largely homogenous (eg
mortgages to lenders in a particular risk group), and convert them
into securities that varied massively in risk (ie an AAA bond that
accounted for c.75% of the money, and 25% of progressively riskier
bonds), with the logic being that if 25% of the loans were written off
then all the AAA bondholders would still be safe.
2) it had been going on since the 1980s led by i-banks; Barclays was
just the first big European commercial bank to get into it in a big
way.
sp...@johnband.org
> Really, no.
>
> 1) the point isn't to mix good and risky debts, it's to do the
> opposite - the process took inputs that were largely homogenous (eg
> mortgages to lenders in a particular risk group), and convert them
> into securities that varied massively in risk (ie an AAA bond that
> accounted for c.75% of the money, and 25% of progressively riskier
> bonds), with the logic being that if 25% of the loans were written off
> then all the AAA bondholders would still be safe.
>
> 2) it had been going on since the 1980s led by i-banks; Barclays was
> just the first big European commercial bank to get into it in a big
> way.
Oh, ...and 3) senior management understood it perfectly well.
It's the things that the ultra-clever guys did *after the stuff that
you can explain to people without maths degrees became mainstream*
that senior management didn't understand.
...and the mess occurred primarily because the credit bubble that the
bankers unleashed led to a larger house price bubble in the US than
had ever been the case in the historical models that were used to
determine the risk ratings - and hence a larger fall than the models
ever predicted was possible.
(the US mortgage broking industry also has a lot to answer for. While
there were a few sharp-practices lenders in the UK, nothing even
vaguely compares to what was going on in Florida and California in
2006).
Only an ignorant hack would blame Brown for the collapse of the banks
- anyone who thinks that any kind of regulatory system that *anyone*
could have justified implementing at any point from 1997-2008 would
have prevented the global crisis literally has no idea what they're
talking about.
It *is* fair to say that the UK would have been in a better position
to deal with the current recession if Brown hadn't based government
spending projections on constantly achieving mid-2000s levels of
growth. But again, there were no serious commentators of any kind in
the mid-2000s saying that mid-2000s levels of growth were
unsustainable.
Recliner
news:da650b8c-028a-4581...@t10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com
> Only an ignorant hack would blame Brown for the collapse of the banks
> - anyone who thinks that any kind of regulatory system that *anyone*
> could have justified implementing at any point from 1997-2008 would
> have prevented the global crisis literally has no idea what they're
> talking about.
The Brown's lax regulatory regime meant that several UK banks would have
failed without strong government intervention. That wasn't true in, say,
Spain. So while Brown clearly didn't *cause* the global crisis, his
policies left the UK more *exposed* to it than necessary.
> It *is* fair to say that the UK would have been in a better position
> to deal with the current recession if Brown hadn't based government
> spending projections on constantly achieving mid-2000s levels of
> growth. But again, there were no serious commentators of any kind in
> the mid-2000s saying that mid-2000s levels of growth were
> unsustainable.
In recent years (including 2009), I think Brown's predictions have been
consistently too optimistic, much more so than most independent
analysts.
Tim Fenton
"Brimstone" <brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vdKdnadPu9AzzJnX...@bt.com...
>
>> A fruitcake is slang for a homosexual
>
> Only in the dialect that is American English.
You're wasting your breath trying to have a rational discussion with Mr
Auer. He's quick to call someone a "terrorist sympathiser", but he'd be the
first to call the late Ronnie Barker for anti-semitism (the Rhyming Slang
Sermon, BTW).
Miles Bader
>> A fruitcake is slang for a homosexual
>
> Only in the dialect that is American English.
In American English, "a fruitcake" is slang for a crazy person.
("a fruit" is slang for a homosexual)
-Miles
--
People who are more than casually interested in computers should have at
least some idea of what the underlying hardware is like. Otherwise the
programs they write will be pretty weird. -- Donald Knuth
DW downunder
"1506" <adrian_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:88dd209f-1a96-486e...@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 7:01 am, "Tim Fenton" <timfen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Martin Edwards" <big_mart...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:FDPMl.42731$HC4....@newsfe14.ams2...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> No so sure about the death of capitalism, although it is certainly
> >>>>> hobbled just now. Free Speech in the UK is certainly in decline.
> >>>>> Jacqui Smith is a laughing stock, on Fox Talk Radio, in the US this
> >>>>> morning, after banning Michael Savage.
> >>>> Not allowing objectionable foreigners into the country has naff all
> >>>> to
> >>>> do with free speech, though.
> >>> Indeed, and the objectionable label certainly applies to Michael
> >>> Savage,
> >>> ne
> >>> Weiner (hmmm, wonder why he changed that).
>
> >>> And anyone who takes Fox Talk Radio as a broadcaster of record is not
> >>> dealing from a full deck.
>
> >> Hey terrorist sympathizing pond scum, is the London Telegraph a
> >> newspaper of record?
>
>
> > Kind of, but it is ultraconservative.
>
> Thanks for quoting that, Martin. It proves what I've suspected for some
> time: that Adrian Auer Hudson is a fruitcake. A kosher fruitcake perhaps,
> but a fruitcake nevertheless.
>
not. Moreover, coming from someone who sympathyses with terror groups
is meaningless.
Tell me Fenton, did your mother know polson's mother?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dunno where you get your slang from ..... fruitcake = nutcase elsewhere!!
David down under
Tim Fenton
"DW downunder" <noname> wrote in message
news:4a085569$0$3253$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>>> Thanks for quoting that, Martin. It proves what I've suspected for some
>>> time: that Adrian Auer Hudson is a fruitcake. A kosher fruitcake
>>> perhaps,
>>> but a fruitcake nevertheless.
>>
> > A fruitcake is slang for a homosexual, which I can assure you I am
> > not. Moreover, coming from someone who sympathyses with terror groups
> > is meaningless.
>
Indeed Dave, this just proves that Adrian Auer Hudson is, in Tube terms, not
merely Barking, but halfway to Upminster.
And where he gets this "Terrorist sympathiser" idea from is, presumably,
another sign of his affliction.
As I know you're reading this, Adrian, I'm seriously considering visiting
the USA later this year. So why don't you give us all a good laugh -
petition the authorities to have me banned. Make yourself look even more
intercoursing stupid than you do already.
Bod
Agreed, it means a nutcase or a loony.
Bod
1506
> And where he gets this "Terrorist sympathiser" idea from is, presumably,
> another sign of his affliction.
>
You have spoken up for Hamas in other threads.
> I'm seriously considering visiting the USA later this year. So why don't you give us all a > good laugh petition the authorities to have me banned. Make yourself look even more
> intercoursing stupid than you do already.
>
Why would I waste any more time on an ineffectual little pissant like
you? When you see your mother, let her know she failed, miserably.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
>plonk!<
disgoftunwells
> On 5 May, 19:08, 1506 <adrian_auerhud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 10:58 am, ibilo...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > From today's London Evening Standard:
>
> > >http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23685571-details/Cross...
>
> > > Crossrail could be delayed at the 11th hour if the Conservatives win
> > > power, it emerged today.
>
> > > They are said to have made the £16billion cross-London rail scheme a
> > > possible savings target.
>
> > > The main construction work on Crossrail is due to start late next
> > > year, after the general election expected in May.
>
> > > However, fears are now growing that David Cameron could halt the rail
> > > project as Margaret Thatcher did following the recession in the early
> > > Nineties.
>
> > > Crossrail was given the go-ahead in 1990, but four years later the
> > > Treasury decided it could not afford both it and the Jubilee Line
> > > extension.
>
> > > Tory leader Mr Cameron has vowed not to shy away from tough decisions
> > > in order to cut Britain's ballooning debt mountain.
>
> > > Conservative sources today stressed that no schemes had been ruled out
> > > from any cost-cutting measures - but shadow transport secretary
> > > Theresa Villiers said there was no "current" review of Crossrail,
> > > sparking confusion over the Tory stance.
>
> > > London Mayor Boris Johnson defended the importance of the new rail
> > > line, which will run from Maidenhead and Heathrow in the west through
> > > tunnels under central London and out to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in
> > > the east.
>
> > > "This is one of those moments in politics when you reverse the usual
> > > rule and get in a hole - and keep on digging," he told The Times.
> > > "Crossrail will make London a far better place to compete.
>
> > > "Not only will it deliver jobs and growth in the short term, it will
> > > help to make our city far more liveable and more attractive as a place
> > > to come and invest."
>
> > > However, the row over businesses in London being asked to pay a new
> > > levy to raise £3.5billion to fund Crossrail escalated today.
>
> > > Mr Johnson has clashed with Communities Secretary Hazel Blears after
> > > demanding a formal exemption from having to poll firms in the capital
> > > on the levy. The Business Rate Supplements Bill, currently going
> > > through Parliament, forces local authorities to ballot firms if they
> > > are being asked to pay more than a third towards a development.
>
> > > London businesses are not being asked to contribute such a large share
> > > for Crossrail, but Mr Johnson is concerned that business leaders could
> > > launch legal action to force him to order a vote.
>
> > > Chancellor Alistair Darling and Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon are
> > > backing the Mayor's stance but Ms Blears's department is insisting
> > > that it cannot have "one rule for London and one rule for the rest of
> > > the country".
>
> > > A senior Whitehall source said: "The fear is that unless there is a
> > > specific exemption then the rules as they apply to Crossrail could be
> > > subject to a judicial review.
>
> > > "We accept the point that Boris, in the year before a mayoral
> > > election, and just after a major recession, could not be expected to
> > > win a ballot of businesses on Crossrail."
>
> > If this is true, it is very bad news. London needs Crossrail.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> It's time to face the facts. Whoever wins the next election, there are
> going to be some pretty hefty tax rises and major cost cutting. This
> may or not affect Crossrail, but the fact remains that Brown and the
> bankers have bankrupted us and we (you, me, us) are going to have to
> foot the bill.
There seems to be broad, if not full consensus, that the Government
should not cut back spending immediately, but will have to as the
recession picks up.
The best thing to do would be to bring forward CrossRail - start
digging now. Unfortunately, our planning system can't cope with that.
The other point is that Labour has been very very bad at managing
costs and avoiding waste, so is more likely to have to make cuts to
front line projects like CrossRail.
Shall we cut £16 billion from CrossRail or Qango Land? Labour is more
likely to cut the former.
1506
Thus it ever has been with Labor. The party showed some signs of
improvement under Blair. But nowhere near enough to make it fit for
government. Britains terminal decline, and complete sublimination
into the EU, now look all but certain. There is no Thatcher in the
sidelines.
Arthur Figgis
I don't think the Crossrail tunnels will be quite deep enough for the
Labor party to get involved.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Martin Edwards
> On May 11, 1:29 pm, disgoftunwells <disgoftunwe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 5 May, 19:24, darkprince66 <darkprince17031...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 5 May, 19:08, 1506 <adrian_auerhud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 5, 10:58 am, ibilo...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>> From today's London Evening Standard:
>>>>> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23685571-details/Cross...
>>>>> Crossrail could be delayed at the 11th hour if the Conservatives win
>>>>> power, it emerged today.
>> likely to cut the former.
>
> Thus it ever has been with Labor. The party showed some signs of
> improvement under Blair. But nowhere near enough to make it fit for
> government. Britains terminal decline, and complete sublimination
> into the EU, now look all but certain. There is no Thatcher in the
> sidelines.
>
Miles Bader
Yeah she'd be pretty rank by now.
Not that she wasn't while she was "alive" ...
-Miles
--
My spirit felt washed. With blood. [Eli Shin, on "The Passion of the Christ"]
Bod
> Martin Edwards <big_m...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> There is no Thatcher in the sidelines.
>>>
>> Phew!
>
> Yeah she'd be pretty rank by now.
>
> Not that she wasn't while she was "alive" ...
>
> -Miles
>
"The lady isn't for turning", so there'd be no point in
digging her up.
Bod
sp...@johnband.org
> > Only an ignorant hack would blame Brown for the collapse of the banks
> > - anyone who thinks that any kind of regulatory system that *anyone*
> > could have justified implementing at any point from 1997-2008 would
> > have prevented the global crisis literally has no idea what they're
> > talking about.
>
> The Brown's lax regulatory regime meant that several UK banks would have
> failed without strong government intervention. That wasn't true in, say,
> Spain. So while Brown clearly didn't *cause* the global crisis, his
> policies left the UK more *exposed* to it than necessary.
No, you're missing the point: given the regulatory regime that Brown
inherited in 1997, the importance of financial services to the UK
economy, and the general consensus among everyone outside the extreme-
left and extreme-right that the City was a Great and Wonderful Thing,
there is no conceivable alternate reality in which any government
taking power over the last 12 years could possibly have imposed
Spanish-style controls on the banking system.
> > It *is* fair to say that the UK would have been in a better position
> > to deal with the current recession if Brown hadn't based government
> > spending projections on constantly achieving mid-2000s levels of
> > growth. But again, there were no serious commentators of any kind in
> > the mid-2000s saying that mid-2000s levels of growth were
> > unsustainable.
>
> In recent years (including 2009), I think Brown's predictions have been
> consistently too optimistic, much more so than most independent
> analysts.
Since the recession started, yes. Not before.
Brimstone
Bod
problem. :-)
Bod
Brimstone
Tim Fenton
> > And where he gets this "Terrorist sympathiser" idea from is, presumably,
> > another sign of his affliction.
> >
> You have spoken up for Hamas in other threads.
Utter bullshit. No evidence forthcoming. The usual malicious lies. Just make
it up.
> > I'm seriously considering visiting the USA later this year. So why don't
> > you give us all a
> > good laugh petition the authorities to have me banned. Make yourself
> > look even more
> > intercoursing stupid than you do already.
> >
> Why would I waste any more time on an ineffectual little pissant like
> you? When you see your mother, let her know she failed, miserably.
Unlike repugnant, malicious bigots like you, I will confine my observations
to the subject in question.
And my point stands: you're totally barking mad.
Tim Fenton
> Thus it ever has been with Labor.
The party in the UK is called Labour.
> The party showed some signs of
> improvement under Blair. But nowhere near enough to make it fit for
> government.
That would be why it won three elections, and then formed the subsequent
government on each occasion.
> Britains terminal decline, and complete sublimination
> into the EU, now look all but certain.
Speaks someone who has a clearly tenuous grip on reality. The EU isn't that
kind of animal.
> There is no Thatcher in the
> sidelines.
Tripling unemployment, 17% interest rates, near doubling of VAT, 20% plus
inflation - I should hope not.
And yes, Crossrail should proceed. The lessons of what happens with delays
was learned with the first phase of the Jubilee Line: commuting on the
Bakerloo in the years before that opened was grim.
Robert
> On May 8, 6:20�pm, "Recliner" <recliner2-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Only an ignorant hack would blame Brown for the collapse of the banks
>>> - anyone who thinks that any kind of regulatory system that *anyone*
>>> could have justified implementing at any point from 1997-2008 would
>>> have prevented the global crisis literally has no idea what they're
>>> talking about.
>>
>> The Brown's lax regulatory regime meant that several UK banks would have
>> failed without strong government intervention. That wasn't true in, say,
>> Spain. So while Brown clearly didn't *cause* the global crisis, his
>> policies left the UK more *exposed* to it than necessary.
>
> No, you're missing the point: given the regulatory regime that Brown
> inherited in 1997,
Is this entirely true? The Bank of England worked out that it had to be
the 'lender of last resort' after the Overend, Gurney failure in 1866
precipitated a financial crisis. Since then, until the Northern Rock
collapsed, there has been no further failures of banks followed
subsequently by a financial crisis: the failure of the (fraudently run)
Bank of Glasgow in 1878 and the near collapse of Barings in 1890 were
well handled.
George Brown changed the regulatory system when, as Chancellor, he set
up the Financial Services Authority in 2000, a company limited by
guarantee and //financed// by the financial services industry. After
134 years without a bank failure, within seven years the new system
presided over a run on a bank.
Brilliant.
> the importance of financial services to the UK
> economy, and the general consensus among everyone
There were some voices raised, mainly in academia I will admit,
questioning why asset price inflation was seen to be a 'good thing' and
that history had shown that these had always led to tears before
bedtime.
> outside the extreme-
> left and extreme-right that the City was a Great and Wonderful Thing,
> there is no conceivable alternate reality in which any government
> taking power over the last 12 years could possibly have imposed
> Spanish-style controls on the banking system.
In general, here I agree - nobody influential wanted to rock the boat.
>
>>> It *is* fair to say that the UK would have been in a better position
>>> to deal with the current recession if Brown hadn't based government
>>> spending projections on constantly achieving mid-2000s levels of
>>> growth. But again, there were �no serious commentators of any kind in
>>> the mid-2000s saying that mid-2000s levels of growth were
>>> unsustainable.
>>
>> In recent years (including 2009), I think Brown's predictions have been
>> consistently too optimistic, much more so than most independent
>> analysts.
>
> Since the recession started, yes. Not before.
--
Robert
Clive
<2884f6dd-339b-4fa2...@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, 1506
<adrian_a...@yahoo.com> writes
>There is no Thatcher in the
>sidelines.
riddance to her.
--
Clive
Nobody
><2884f6dd-339b-4fa2...@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, 1506
><adrian_a...@yahoo.com> writes
>>There is no Thatcher in the
>>sidelines.
>Thank your God for that. Thatcher taught that greed was good.
But that's the Ammurican way.. she was buddy-buddy with Ronnie R.
Martin Edwards
good speech about looking after the environment. Then, as you say, the
Axis was formed and it was business, business and be damned.
1506
> > Indeed, and the objectionable label certainly applies to MichaelSavage, ne
> > Weiner (hmmm, wonder why he changed that).
>
>
> I find most of his views objectionable (that is once I realised he
> existed - thank you Home Secretary), some not so, but, so far as I
> know, they are not illegal views in this country.
>
> Therefore, one is left with the impression that his views are
> primarily objectionable to the Labour party and that is no criteria
> for granting entry to the UK.
>
> It also raises the question of where this leaves those who may share
> his views that are already resident in the UK, especially with regard
> to New Labour’s so called hate crimes that they would claim would
> never threaten free speech.
>
> Indeed, I can think of one senior figure within the railway industry
> that very definitely shares at least one of his views with quite some
> passion.
Score at half time:
Savage 1: Smith 0
The lawsuit is going ahead.
Tim Fenton
> > > Indeed, and the objectionable label certainly applies to
> > > MichaelSavage, ne
> > > Weiner (hmmm, wonder why he changed that).
>
> > Yes but objectionable to whom?
>
> > I find most of his views objectionable (that is once I realised he
> > existed - thank you Home Secretary), some not so, but, so far as I
> > know, they are not illegal views in this country.
> Score at half time:
> Savage 1: Smith 0
> The lawsuit is going ahead.
Is that like all the lawsuits that the Republican right have brought to try
and prove that their elected President is not legitimate?
Michael Weiner (yes, he's a Weiner) hasn't scored anything. Nor will he.
He's just a windbag.
1506
> > Weiner (hmmm, wonder why he changed that).
>
> Yes but objectionable to whom?
>
> I find most of his views objectionable (that is once I realised he
> existed - thank you Home Secretary), some not so, but, so far as I
> know, they are not illegal views in this country.
>
> primarily objectionable to the Labour party and that is no criteria
> for granting entry to the UK.
>
> It also raises the question of where this leaves those who may share
> his views that are already resident in the UK, especially with regard
> to New Labour’s so called hate crimes that they would claim would
> never threaten free speech.
>
> Indeed, I can think of one senior figure within the railway industry
> that very definitely shares at least one of his views with quite some
> passion.
Jacqui Smith is OUT. This is one small step for Liberty.
http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/
In truth the woman is absolutely disguting and should never have held
high office.
Mizter T
On Jun 3, 7:42 pm, 1506 <adrian_auerhud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Jacqui Smith is OUT. This is one small step for Liberty.
> http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/
>
> In truth the woman is absolutely disguting and should never have held
> high office.
Do you have any objections to her apart from the slightly absurd
Michael Alan Weiner episode?
MIG
This morning I kept hearing objections to the fact that she failed to
get 42-day detention without trial through Parliament. I'd object to
the fact that she tried, if I thought it was really her idea.
However, she does seem to have Home Secreted through a period when
absurd and sinister restrictions on civil liberties have been
inflicted on rail enthusiasts and others and the police have reverted
to beating up demonstrators* after years of relative restraint.
*Starting with the Bush visit in 2008.
1506
There is nothing absurd about banning a patriotic American, from the
UK, over a free speech issue.
And, yes I find it hard to find much to like about a mean spirited,
individual abusing her office while utilizing pornography at the
taxpayer's expense.
Do you honestly believe she could have been a member of Ben Disraeli’s
cabinet? Jacqui Smith is something unpleasant washed up by the sewer
that was once the mighty United Kingdom.
BrianW
> On Jun 3, 12:51 pm, Mizter T <mizte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 3, 7:42 pm, 1506 <adrian_auerhud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > [snip]
>
> > > Jacqui Smith is OUT. This is one small step for Liberty.
> > >http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/
>
> > > In truth the woman is absolutely disguting and should never have held
> > > high office.
>
> > Do you have any objections to her apart from the slightly absurd
> > Michael Alan Weiner episode?
>
> There is nothing absurd about banning a patriotic American, from the
> UK, over a free speech issue.
The absurdity was that no-one here had even heard of Michael
Whatsisname before she banned him. Bloody daft if you ask me.
> And, yes I find it hard to find much to like about a mean spirited,
> individual abusing her office while utilizing pornography at the
> taxpayer's expense.
That was her husband, not her.
> Do you honestly believe she could have been a member of Ben Disraeli’s
> cabinet? Jacqui Smith is something unpleasant washed up by the sewer
> that was once the mighty United Kingdom.
Probably not. My main objection to her is that she is crap, not that
she is in some way morally decadent.
Tony Polson
>My main objection to her is that she is crap, not that
>she is in some way morally decadent.
Absolutely right, Brian.
I am surprised that no-one mentioned (1) the proposal for 42 days'
detention without trial for people suspected of association with
terrorism, which she personally championed inside and outside the House
of Commons, convincing no-one but herself, until it failed through a
complete lack of support; (2) her staunch support for the Metropolitan
Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, despite everyone else in the country
except her realising that Blair was irretrievably damaged by the de
Menezes shooting and its aftermath, plus Blair's nasty habit of secretly
recording conversations with, among others, the Attorney General, Lord
Goldsmith, and (3) her claim that the room she rents in her sister's
house in Greater London was her "primary home", resulting in her being
able to claim full expenses on the family home in Redditch.
There's plenty more - my personal favourite was her gaffe about the
inadvisability of walking along London streets at night, when she
claimed that it was "not a thing that people do".
I always felt that she was not on this planet, what with her uncanny
resemblance (especially in voice) to Holly, the computer in Red Dwarf
series 3-5.
Probably the worst Home Secretary this country has ever had.
Mizter T
I didn't say that the policies that she pursued weren't objectionable
- indeed I didn't even say that she wasn't objectionable either - I
offered no comment either way on her potential objectionableness. All
I was trying to do was to tease out whether 1506/ Adrian Auer-Hudson
had any other substantive objections to her apart from the Michael
Weiner episode. It seems from his reply that he doesn't. I think
that's rather two dimensional.
john.po...@googlemail.com
Nasty habit? It's common practice in many places whenever one has to
report to senior officials within a ministry or even a minister.
1506
The people to ask about her performance are probably the various
County Constabularies, the Immigration Service, and the Prison
Service. They came under department and had to implement her polices.
Mine is purely a citizen's, nay, an electors view. My "two
dimensional" observation is that she was a smug, conceited, mean, hard
left, unpleasant individual. She is not a credit to her party, her
government, or her country. I would never consider voting for her.
CJB
> Bod wrote:
> > Miles Bader wrote:
> >>>> There is no Thatcher in the sidelines.
>
> >>> Phew!
>
> >> Yeah she'd be pretty rank by now.
>
> >> Not that she wasn't while she was "alive" ...
>
> >> -Miles
>
> > "The lady isn't for turning", so there'd be no point in
> > digging her up.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
They can't cancel Crossrail after just demolishing the Astoria night
club!!!
Mizter T
> On Jun 3, 12:51 pm, Mizter T <mizte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 3, 7:42 pm, 1506 <adrian_auerhud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > [snip]
>
> > > Jacqui Smith is OUT. This is one small step for Liberty.
> > >http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/
>
> > > In truth the woman is absolutely disguting and should never have held
> > > high office.
>
> > Do you have any objections to her apart from the slightly absurd
> > Michael Alan Weiner episode?
>
> There is nothing absurd about banning a patriotic American, from the
> UK, over a free speech issue.
I said the episode was absurd - my language was carefully chosen, if
perhaps somewhat (intentionally) ambiguous. I did previously express
an opinion that essentially didn't object to this ban - I had thought
about it some more, I think the guy still sounds like a nasty scumbag
(and certainly not someone to be proud of, let alone hero-worshipped),
but banning him was silly - no one had the vaguest idea of who this
guy was, people have now vaguely heard of him, still no one really
cares about him but it's daft to have even created this hoo-haa that
"risks turning a rabid blabbermouth into a beacon for free
speech" (those being the pithy words of Sam Leith writing in the
Guardian).
>
> And, yes I find it hard to find much to like about a mean spirited,
> individual abusing her office while utilizing pornography at the
> taxpayer's expense.
That was her husband. She has actually campaigned against pornography
in the past.
>
> Do you honestly believe she could have been a member of Ben Disraeli’s
> cabinet? Jacqui Smith is something unpleasant washed up by the sewer
> that was once the mighty United Kingdom.
Women couldn't be elected MPs until 1918. But anyway, I wasn;t
defending her, I was just wondering if your critique of her was any
deeper than merely damning her for her treatment of your cherished
Savage. It would appear not.
Mizter T
On Jun 3, 10:33 pm, Tony Polson <docnews2...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> [...] (3) her claim that the room she rents in her sister's
> house in Greater London was her "primary home", resulting in her being
> able to claim full expenses on the family home in Redditch.
It smells, no doubt. However, as Home Secretary she did spend an awful
lot of time in London, and hence under the rules nominating her
sister's house as her main residence was legit - I'm not saying it was
at all a sensible thing to have done though.
>
> There's plenty more - my personal favourite was her gaffe about the
> inadvisability of walking along London streets at night, when she
> claimed that it was "not a thing that people do".
Thoroughly daft.
>
> Probably the worst Home Secretary this country has ever had.
Ooh, there's quite a few fish to choose from in that toxic pond...
1506
> On Jun 3, 9:29 pm, 1506 <adrian_auerhud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 12:51 pm, Mizter T <mizte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 3, 7:42 pm, 1506 <adrian_auerhud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > [snip]
>
> > > > Jacqui Smith is OUT. This is one small step for Liberty.
> > > >http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/
>
> > > > In truth the woman is absolutely disguting and should never have held
> > > > high office.
>
> > > Do you have any objections to her apart from the slightly absurd
> > > Michael Alan Weiner episode?
>
> > There is nothing absurd about banning a patriotic American, from the
> > UK, over a free speech issue.
>
> I said the episode was absurd - my language was carefully chosen, if
> perhaps somewhat (intentionally) ambiguous. I did previously express
> an opinion that essentially didn't object to this ban - I had thought
> about it some more, I think the guy still sounds like a nasty scumbag
> (and certainly not someone to be proud of, let alone hero-worshipped),
> but banning him was silly - no one had the vaguest idea of who this
> guy was, people have now vaguely heard of him, still no one really
> cares about him but it's daft to have even created this hoo-haa that
> "risks turning a rabid blabbermouth into a beacon for free
> speech" (those being the pithy words of Sam Leith writing in the
> Guardian).
>
sans their context.
>
> Women couldn't be elected MPs until 1918. But anyway, I wasn;t
> defending her, I was just wondering if your critique of her was any
> deeper than merely damning her for her treatment of your cherished
> Savage. It would appear not.
In short, I have problems with any government interfering with minute
details of peoples lives. Smith's notion that people should walk
where and when she thought appropriate is ridiculous and obnoxious.
Moreover, I dislike any interference in free speech issues. There is
lots of speech that I do not like. I do not think it should be
banned.
Tony Polson
>On Jun 3, 10:33�pm, Tony Polson <docnews2...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...] (3) her claim that the room she rents in her sister's
>> house in Greater London was her "primary home", resulting in her being
>> able to claim full expenses on the family home in Redditch.
>
>It smells, no doubt. However, as Home Secretary she did spend an awful
>lot of time in London, and hence under the rules nominating her
>sister's house as her main residence was legit - I'm not saying it was
>at all a sensible thing to have done though.
Oh, of course. It was "within the rules". The trouble is, the rules
are nonsense, and using them as a defence is like building a railway
bridge out of plasticene - it just doesn't work. Many MPs have made
claims that are demonstrably morally wrong, but can truthfully state
that they were "within the rules".
The phrase has an unhappy resemblance to "I was only taking orders".
That was no defence at the Nuremburg Trials and "within the rules"
doesn't wash now, either.
>> There's plenty more - my personal favourite was her gaffe about the
>> inadvisability of walking along London streets at night, when she
>> claimed that it was "not a thing that people do".
>
>Thoroughly daft.
>
>>
>> Probably the worst Home Secretary this country has ever had.
>
>Ooh, there's quite a few fish to choose from in that toxic pond...
Not in my lifetime, though! She is one of a kind.
Tony Polson
>
>I did previously express
>an opinion that essentially didn't object to this ban - I had thought
>about it some more, I think the guy still sounds like a nasty scumbag
>(and certainly not someone to be proud of, let alone hero-worshipped),
>but banning him was silly - no one had the vaguest idea of who this
>guy was, people have now vaguely heard of him, still no one really
>cares about him but it's daft to have even created this hoo-haa that
>"risks turning a rabid blabbermouth into a beacon for free
>speech" (those being the pithy words of Sam Leith writing in the
>Guardian).
The guy is an extreme Zionist ultra-conservative. No wonder Auer-Hudson
likes him - they are equally repugnant people. Like two peas in a pod.
BrianW
I haven't heard him. Nor had I even heard *of* him before this
ridiculous saga. From what I have read, I very much doubt I would see
eye to eye with Mr Savage's views. However, again from what I have
read, he in no way poses a threat to this country and its
inhabitants. I see no reason to ban such an individual from entering
the UK. In fact, I bet he wouldn't have even had any reason to come
here in the first place. Jacqui Smith's actions have therefore
created a problem that wouldn't otherwise have existed. Nice one, Mrs
Smith!
JNugent
> Tony Polson <docnews2...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> [...] (3) her claim that the room she rents in her sister's
>> house in Greater London was her "primary home", resulting in her being
>> able to claim full expenses on the family home in Redditch.
> It smells, no doubt. However, as Home Secretary she did spend an awful
> lot of time in London, and hence under the rules nominating her
> sister's house as her main residence was legit - I'm not saying it was
> at all a sensible thing to have done though.
Since her sister's spare bedroom was very obviously NOT her main home (that
distinction belonging to the house she shares with her husband, children and
the family DVD collection), her claiming it as her main home was a clear
fabricated contrivance and thus very patently NOT "legit". It was anything
but legitimate. It was a falsehood, even if it was connived at by those in
charge of the expenses system.
Note that I do not say that it inpossible for "residence flipping" to be
legitimate - it is easy to imagine circumstances where it might well be - but
in this case, it was never honest for Jackie Smith to say that her main home
was was with her sister. That could only have been true if she had been
separated from her husband and family. Making a false statement in order to
obtain a pecuniary advantage is a criminal offence. The fact that no-one
believes the false statement is not a defence.
Tony Polson
>I haven't heard him. Nor had I even heard *of* him before this
>ridiculous saga.
His radio show gets a claimed audience of anything up to 10 million -
among extreme right wing radio hosts, he's second only to Rush Limbaugh.
So he may not be well known here, but he's well enough known over there.
>From what I have read, I very much doubt I would see
>eye to eye with Mr Savage's views. However, again from what I have
>read, he in no way poses a threat to this country and its
>inhabitants. I see no reason to ban such an individual from entering
>the UK. In fact, I bet he wouldn't have even had any reason to come
>here in the first place.
It seems odd to single him out for such a ban when so many Muslim
preachers of hatred are allowed to come and go as they please. There's
hardly a day when there isn't one or other of them ranting in Luton.
>Jacqui Smith's actions have therefore created a problem that wouldn't
>otherwise have existed. Nice one, Mrs Smith!
That's typical New Labour. Create a problem that no-one knew existed,
then try to take the credit for "solving" it.
Tony Polson
>
>Since her sister's spare bedroom was very obviously NOT her main home (that
>distinction belonging to the house she shares with her husband, children and
>the family DVD collection), her claiming it as her main home was a clear
>fabricated contrivance and thus very patently NOT "legit". It was anything
>but legitimate. It was a falsehood, even if it was connived at by those in
>charge of the expenses system.
"Those in charge of the expenses system" are of course MPs themselves.
Mizter T
On Jun 4, 9:58 am, Tony Polson <docnews2...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> BrianW <brianwhiteh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I haven't heard him. Nor had I even heard *of* him before this
> >ridiculous saga.
>
> His radio show gets a claimed audience of anything up to 10 million -
> among extreme right wing radio hosts, he's second only to Rush Limbaugh.
> So he may not be well known here, but he's well enough known over there.
>
> >From what I have read, I very much doubt I would see
> >eye to eye with Mr Savage's views. However, again from what I have
> >read, he in no way poses a threat to this country and its
> >inhabitants. I see no reason to ban such an individual from entering
> >the UK. In fact, I bet he wouldn't have even had any reason to come
> >here in the first place.
>
> It seems odd to single him out for such a ban when so many Muslim
> preachers of hatred are allowed to come and go as they please. There's
> hardly a day when there isn't one or other of them ranting in Luton.
Do you go and listen to them?
>
> >Jacqui Smith's actions have therefore created a problem that wouldn't
> >otherwise have existed. Nice one, Mrs Smith!
>
> That's typical New Labour. Create a problem that no-one knew existed,
> then try to take the credit for "solving" it.
I can't help but feel he may have been included on the list so as to
'round it' - i.e. to demonstrate that no one particular extreme stance
was being singled out by the government, and that they were taking a
'holistic' view on the matter. But it was a daft decision nonetheless.
Tony Polson
>On Jun 4, 9:58�am, Tony Polson <docnews2...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> BrianW <brianwhiteh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >I haven't heard him. �Nor had I even heard *of* him before this
>> >ridiculous saga. �
>>
>> His radio show gets a claimed audience of anything up to 10 million -
>> among extreme right wing radio hosts, he's second only to Rush Limbaugh.
>> So he may not be well known here, but he's well enough known over there.
>>
>> >From what I have read, I very much doubt I would see
>> >eye to eye with Mr Savage's views. �However, again from what I have
>> >read, he in no way poses a threat to this country and its
>> >inhabitants. �I see no reason to ban such an individual from entering
>> >the UK. �In fact, I bet he wouldn't have even had any reason to come
>> >here in the first place. �
>>
>> It seems odd to single him out for such a ban when so many Muslim
>> preachers of hatred are allowed to come and go as they please. �There's
>> hardly a day when there isn't one or other of them ranting in Luton.
>
>Do you go and listen to them?
No, because very few of them preach in English. But I do a lot of work
in Luton, and know many Muslims who are deeply concerned about the
nature of the preaching.
>> >Jacqui Smith's actions have therefore created a problem that wouldn't
>> >otherwise have existed. �Nice one, Mrs Smith!
>>
>> That's typical New Labour. �Create a problem that no-one knew existed,
>> then try to take the credit for "solving" it.
>
>I can't help but feel he may have been included on the list so as to
>'round it' - i.e. to demonstrate that no one particular extreme stance
>was being singled out by the government, and that they were taking a
>'holistic' view on the matter.
An interesting point of view.
>But it was a daft decision nonetheless.
Daft politicians make daft decisions. She was never up to the job. Her
appointment was a shocker. No-one in the party could believe that the
first ever woman Home Secretary would be ... Jacqui Smith!
If you absolutely *had* to choose a woman, and that's not in itself a
bad idea, there were certainly less bad choices that could have been
made. Harriet Harman was a more obvious candidate. Harman would
probably not have made a good Home Secretary, but she would not have
been remotely as bad as Jacqui Smith. And I said that at the time - not
just now, with the benefit of hindsight.
Labour's problem is now that, just as the Tories found in the mid-1990s,
they have run out of talent. The first level of talent has come and
gone, with only Mandelson and Straw remaining. The second raters
followed, and have been found wanting. So now it's the turn of the
third raters to be elevated to positions of power.
Jacqui Smith was an early example; after tomorrow's reshuffle, almost
the whole of Labour's front bench will be of the same low standard. And
the really bad news is that they will be headed up by a fourth-rate
Prime Minister who lacks the ability to lead. God help us. The
election cannot come too soon.
(And the smiling ex-postman would be even worse!)
Mizter T
On Jun 4, 12:15 am, Tony Polson <docnews2...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Mizter T <mizte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 3, 10:33 pm, Tony Polson <docnews2...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> [...] (3) her claim that the room she rents in her sister's
> >> house in Greater London was her "primary home", resulting in her being
> >> able to claim full expenses on the family home in Redditch.
>
> >It smells, no doubt. However, as Home Secretary she did spend an awful
> >lot of time in London, and hence under the rules nominating her
> >sister's house as her main residence was legit - I'm not saying it was
> >at all a sensible thing to have done though.
>
> Oh, of course. It was "within the rules". The trouble is, the rules
> are nonsense, and using them as a defence is like building a railway
> bridge out of plasticene - it just doesn't work. Many MPs have made
> claims that are demonstrably morally wrong, but can truthfully state
> that they were "within the rules".
Look, sorry, I didn't really communicate the point I wanted to convey
at all well. I agree with all your sentiments above - MPs saying their
claims were "within the rules" or "approved by the fees office" ios of
course nonsensical cant, as they wrote the rules and furthermore the
fees office essentially regarded themselves as but humble servants to
their masters.
The only point I wanted to get across was that Jacqui Smith did spend
the majority of her time in London whilst she was Home Secretary -
there were some rather partisan neighbours who popped up to claim that
she didn't, but they were wrong. Though as you will see in my reply to
J Nugent downthread, the question is whether she can then claim it as
her "main home". The common sense answer seems to be no.
>
> The phrase has an unhappy resemblance to "I was only taking orders".
> That was no defence at the Nuremburg Trials and "within the rules"
> doesn't wash now, either.
Call for Godwin!
>
> >> Probably the worst Home Secretary this country has ever had.
>
> >Ooh, there's quite a few fish to choose from in that toxic pond...
>
> Not in my lifetime, though! She is one of a kind.
Baker, Howard, Blunkett, Clarke, Reid...
Afraid my general stance is to be rather sceptical of all Home
Secretaries in a somewhat negative way - which admittedly isn't
perhaps a particularly helpful attitude to hold when looking to hold
them to account.
BrianW
Have you always been such good friends? ;-)
BrianW
I think this is probably right. I reckon once they drew up a list of
ranting Islamists, they found that the list was not "ethnically
balanced", so looked for some white people to make up numbers. Quite
why they chose Savage, though, is beyond me.
Steve Firth
> Jacqui Smith was an early example;
And the awful Hazel Blears. Smug, bumptious and apparently she's amazed
by her own genius and blind to the fact that she's the only person in
the whole world to be amazed by her genius.
She reminds me of some cocky, stupid child who come up with what they
think are clever cheeky remarks when asked/told to do something by an
adult. Round these parts she'd be spending time on the naughty step.
Mizter T
On Jun 4, 9:25 am, JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
> Mizter T wrote:
>
> > Tony Polson <docnews2...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> [...] (3) her claim that the room she rents in her sister's
> >> house in Greater London was her "primary home", resulting in her being
> >> able to claim full expenses on the family home in Redditch.
>
> > It smells, no doubt. However, as Home Secretary she did spend an awful
> > lot of time in London, and hence under the rules nominating her
> > sister's house as her main residence was legit - I'm not saying it was
> > at all a sensible thing to have done though.
>
> Since her sister's spare bedroom was very obviously NOT her main home (that
> distinction belonging to the house she shares with her husband, children and
> the family DVD collection), her claiming it as her main home was a clear
> fabricated contrivance and thus very patently NOT "legit". It was anything
> but legitimate. It was a falsehood, even if it was connived at by those in
> charge of the expenses system.
I must admit that I hadn't actually looked at the famous Green Book,
the HoC guide to expenses, until now - I was expecting some slightly
more complicated rules on what residence counts as what, but no - the
phrase used in section 2.1.2 (p12-13) is simply "main home". At the
back (p66) there's a list of definitions - this is the definiotion for
a main home:
---<quote>---
Main home is the term used in the Green Book for the term “only or
main residence” as used in the applicable
Resolutions of the House and the relevant legal provisions. It is for
a Member to determine where his or her main home is based on his or
her circumstances. It must be in the UK.
---</quote>---
She did spend the majority of her time in London during her tenure as
Home Secretary - which was the only point that I was attempting
(badly) to get across, but I quite agree that it was absurd to have
claimed her sister's house it as her "main home", especially so given
that she could (and did) then claim expenses for her Redditch house as
a secondary residence.
As an aside, may I just say that I find the idea of where "the family
DVD collection" is being a guide as to where the main home is as
laughable! Is there some new requirement that all families in Britain
must have a DVD collection?
>
> Note that I do not say that it inpossible for "residence flipping" to be
> legitimate - it is easy to imagine circumstances where it might well be - but
> in this case, it was never honest for Jackie Smith to say that her main home
> was was with her sister. That could only have been true if she had been
> separated from her husband and family. Making a false statement in order to
> obtain a pecuniary advantage is a criminal offence. The fact that no-one
> believes the false statement is not a defence.
*If* you were to say that your "main home" is merely defined by where
you spend the majority of your nights - which is what Jacqui Smith did
- then there's no falsehood. The issue is that nowhere is "main home"
tightly defined - indeed, as I've quoted above, it's basically up for
the MP themselves to decide that "based on his or her circumstances".
You simply couldn't create a legal case around this whatsoever.
I'm not trying to mount some staunch defence of Jacqui Smith - I quite
agree that was she did was wrong, as it was basically 'working the
system'. The situation may arguably have been a bit less clear cut if
she actually did have her own flat or house in London - though I'm
sure that under your thinking (which I kind of agree with), any such
London residence should still not be claimed as a "main home". Anyway,
she would probably have claimed any such residence in London as her
second home as that would have been financially advantageous (given
that London is expensive and her Redditch home doesn't have a moat
that needs cleaning or acres of meadows that need moving).
Tony Polson
Yes, and I am sure we always will be. :-)
Steve Firth
> > >> Probably the worst Home Secretary this country has ever had.
> >
> > >Ooh, there's quite a few fish to choose from in that toxic pond...
> >
> > Not in my lifetime, though! She is one of a kind.
>
> Baker, Howard, Blunkett, Clarke, Reid...
How could you forget Straw? Possibly the worst Home Secretary in a long
time.
Tony Polson
>
>As an aside, may I just say that I find the idea of where "the family
>DVD collection" is being a guide as to where the main home is as
>laughable! Is there some new requirement that all families in Britain
>must have a DVD collection?
One can only imagine what is in Jacqui Smith's family DVD collection.
Brimstone
Not forgetting the infamously clueless David Waddington, HS for a whole
thirteen months.
Steve Firth
Steve Firth
> As an aside, may I just say that I find the idea of where "the family
> DVD collection" is being a guide as to where the main home is as
> laughable! Is there some new requirement that all families in Britain
> must have a DVD collection?
On that basis, my main home is a 20ft shipping container.
Tim Fenton
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1j0s9q4.54ofhevp6tyaN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>
> And the awful Hazel Blears. Smug, bumptious and apparently she's amazed
> by her own genius and blind to the fact that she's the only person in
> the whole world to be amazed by her genius.
Strangely enough, Ms Blears has had quite a favourable press from the
Westminster village this week. This was at odds with reactions in her
Salford constituency, where BBC North West Tonight had difficulty finding
anyone prepared to speak up for her.
> She reminds me of some cocky, stupid child who come up with what they
> think are clever cheeky remarks when asked/told to do something by an
> adult. Round these parts she'd be spending time on the naughty step.
She'd have to reach it first.
--
Tim
http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net/
http://zelo-street.blogspot.com/
BrianW
Has there ever actually been a *good* Home Secretary?
Paul Scott
"Tim Fenton" <timf...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:78prouF...@mid.individual.net...
Whenever I see her happy smiling face it conjours up Jack Nicholson as the
Joker in Batman!
Could they be in any way related?
Paul
Alistair Gunn
> I think this is probably right. I reckon once they drew up a list of
> ranting Islamists, they found that the list was not "ethnically
> balanced", so looked for some white people to make up numbers. Quite
> why they chose Savage, though, is beyond me.
Maybe they figured no-one (well, hardly anyone) in the UK would have
heard of him and thus there'd be minimal complaints about his exclusion?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
Steve Firth
> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1j0s9q4.54ofhevp6tyaN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> >
> > And the awful Hazel Blears. Smug, bumptious and apparently she's amazed
> > by her own genius and blind to the fact that she's the only person in
> > the whole world to be amazed by her genius.
>
> Strangely enough, Ms Blears has had quite a favourable press from the
> Westminster village this week. This was at odds with reactions in her
> Salford constituency, where BBC North West Tonight had difficulty finding
> anyone prepared to speak up for her.
I'm not too surprised. Her attitude seems to be that smug and cocky will
get her through the accusations against her. There's something about her
that makes me hope that she's going to get slung out by the electorate.
Tony Polson
>Tony Polson wrote:
>>
>> Oh, of course. It was "within the rules". The trouble is, the rules
>> are nonsense, and using them as a defence is like building a railway
>> bridge out of plasticene - it just doesn't work. Many MPs have made
>> claims that are demonstrably morally wrong, but can truthfully state
>> that they were "within the rules".
>
>Look, sorry, I didn't really communicate the point I wanted to convey
>at all well. I agree with all your sentiments above - MPs saying their
>course nonsensical cant, as they wrote the rules and furthermore the
>fees office essentially regarded themselves as but humble servants to
>their masters.
>
>The only point I wanted to get across was that Jacqui Smith did spend
>the majority of her time in London whilst she was Home Secretary -
>there were some rather partisan neighbours who popped up to claim that
>she didn't, but they were wrong. Though as you will see in my reply to
>J Nugent downthread, the question is whether she can then claim it as
>her "main home". The common sense answer seems to be no.
The common sense solution in such a situation would be to reimburse
Jacqui Smith for the reasonable cost of renting one room. Asking
anything more would constitute fraud, whether "within the rules" or not.
>> The phrase has an unhappy resemblance to "I was only taking orders".
>> That was no defence at the Nuremburg Trials and "within the rules"
>> doesn't wash now, either.
>
>Call for Godwin!
I apologise. In my defence, it was a near-perfect analogy. ;-)
>> >> Probably the worst Home Secretary this country has ever had.
>>
>> >Ooh, there's quite a few fish to choose from in that toxic pond...
>>
>> Not in my lifetime, though! She is one of a kind.
>
>Baker, Howard, Blunkett, Clarke, Reid...
None of them were good, I agree, for a variety of reasons. But none
were remotely as bad as Jacqui Smith. She just never got a grip of the
job. You could accuse the others of taking the Home Office in wrong
directions; Jacqui Smith took it nowhere at all.
>Afraid my general stance is to be rather sceptical of all Home
>Secretaries in a somewhat negative way - which admittedly isn't
>perhaps a particularly helpful attitude to hold when looking to hold
>them to account.
Of the Big Three jobs in Government (Home Office, Foreign Office,
Treasury) running the Home Office is a thankless task. It is difficult
to do it well, easy to do it badly, but the holder of the post will
never get due credit for anything.
In Jacqui Smith's case, she never actually did the job. She was almost
entirely passive, and when she did show any sign of activity (42 days,
defending Ian Blair, proscribing a right wing shock jock) she showed a
lamentable lack of judgment. Any of the other five you mentioned would
have done far better, and they did, although I admit not well.
1506
> In uk.railway BrianW twisted the electrons to say:
>
> > I think this is probably right. I reckon once they drew up a list of
> > ranting Islamists, they found that the list was not "ethnically
> > balanced", so looked for some white people to make up numbers. Quite
> > why they chose Savage, though, is beyond me.
>
> Maybe they figured no-one (well, hardly anyone) in the UK would have
> heard of him and thus there'd be minimal complaints about his exclusion?
"They" Jacqui, and I guess advisors with a similar mental capacity of
her own, completely misjudged the Conservative Movement in the United
States.
What I cannot understand is why Michael is bringing his lawsuit to the
jurisdiction of England & Wales. Since this is an international case,
and Michael is bringing the suit, I would have expected him to have
chosen a friendly jurisdiction. Somewhere like Alaska, Mississippi,
Texas, or Utah would seem ideal. :-)
Tim Fenton
"1506" <adrian_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4fba54cb-9d06-43e2...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > I think this is probably right. I reckon once they drew up a list of
> > > ranting Islamists, they found that the list was not "ethnically
> > > balanced", so looked for some white people to make up numbers. Quite
> > > why they chose Savage, though, is beyond me.
>
> > Maybe they figured no-one (well, hardly anyone) in the UK would have
> > heard of him and thus there'd be minimal complaints about his exclusion?
> "They" Jacqui, and I guess advisors with a similar mental capacity of
> her own, completely misjudged the Conservative Movement in the United
> States.
Who gives a flying foxtrot about the so-called "Conservative Movement" in
the USA? It's no more that a load of blowhards, gob merchants and
independent fruitcakes.
And supporters of Michael Wiener, who called Ms Smith "the Home Secretary of
England" are in no position to talk of "mental capacity".
> What I cannot understand is why Michael is bringing his lawsuit to the
> jurisdiction of England & Wales.
Because the judgment of HMG was made there. In any case, Michael Weiner, who
has taken out a number of lawsuits over the years, and successfully
concluded none of them, may soon find that things are indeed different in
the UK - probably at the time he gets his wallet emptied.
Bring that one one. Ho yus.
bill...@weacca.com
The libel laws are significantly different in the United States and
England. In the States, Mr Savage's chance of success would have
been close to zero. Most likely, the case wouldn't even have made it
to a Jury.
I do think banning him was silly. However, his hate filled rants
regularly call for the violent overthrow of internationally recognized
governements, and the violent extermination of those with whom he
disagrees. He couches these statements in terms of moral
imperatives. He certainly doesn't limit his criticism to despotic
south western asian regimes either --- he's certainly not shy about
calling for the heads of Western European and even American government
officials. Isn't this precisely the sort of speech that got the
Imams on the list excluded?
Bill
1506
Cite specific examples, with context.
BrianW
Actually, England is probably the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction
in the world for libel claims. The burden of proof lies with the
defendant i.e. Jacqui Smith will have the onus of proving that what
she said about Savage was true. English courts are so plaintiff-
friendly, in fact, that a number of US States, including (IIRC) New
York are passing laws so that English libel judgments cannot be
enforced in their courts.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
[re Jacqui/Jackie Smith:]
>> Since her sister's spare bedroom was very obviously NOT her main home (that
>> distinction belonging to the house she shares with her husband, children and
>> the family DVD collection), her claiming it as her main home was a clear
>> fabricated contrivance and thus very patently NOT "legit". It was anything
>> but legitimate. It was a falsehood, even if it was connived at by those in
>> charge of the expenses system.
> I must admit that I hadn't actually looked at the famous Green Book,
> the HoC guide to expenses, until now - I was expecting some slightly
> more complicated rules on what residence counts as what, but no - the
> phrase used in section 2.1.2 (p12-13) is simply "main home". At the
> back (p66) there's a list of definitions - this is the definiotion for
> a main home:
> ---<quote>---
> Main home is the term used in the Green Book for the term �only or
> main residence� as used in the applicable
> Resolutions of the House and the relevant legal provisions. It is for
> a Member to determine where his or her main home is based on his or
> her circumstances. It must be in the UK.
> ---</quote>---
> She did spend the majority of her time in London during her tenure as
> Home Secretary - which was the only point that I was attempting
> (badly) to get across, but I quite agree that it was absurd to have
> claimed her sister's house it as her "main home", especially so given
> that she could (and did) then claim expenses for her Redditch house as
> a secondary residence.
> As an aside, may I just say that I find the idea of where "the family
> DVD collection" is being a guide as to where the main home is as
> laughable! ...
Really?
The Smith family seem to have a penchant for videos.
>> Note that I do not say that it inpossible for "residence flipping" to be
>> legitimate - it is easy to imagine circumstances where it might well be - but
>> in this case, it was never honest for Jackie Smith to say that her main home
>> was was with her sister. That could only have been true if she had been
>> separated from her husband and family. Making a false statement in order to
>> obtain a pecuniary advantage is a criminal offence. The fact that no-one
>> believes the false statement is not a defence.
> *If* you were to say that your "main home" is merely defined by where
> you spend the majority of your nights - which is what Jacqui Smith did
> - then there's no falsehood.
But it is an absurdity in her case, just as it would be for an oil rig worker
to claim the Morth Sea as his main home.
> The issue is that nowhere is "main home"
> tightly defined - indeed, as I've quoted above, it's basically up for
> the MP themselves to decide that "based on his or her circumstances".
Maybe so - but there is a single right answer in every case. And for a
married home-owner with children who is buying afamily house on a mortgage to
argue that their sister's box room is their main home is patently false.
> You simply couldn't create a legal case around this whatsoever.
I think you could. Making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining - or
attempting to obtain - a pecuniary advantage is a crime. The meaning of
"false statement" falls to be established by the court - not by the defendant
a priori.
> I'm not trying to mount some staunch defence of Jacqui Smith - I quite
> agree that was she did was wrong, as it was basically 'working the
> system'. The situation may arguably have been a bit less clear cut if
> she actually did have her own flat or house in London - though I'm
> sure that under your thinking (which I kind of agree with), any such
> London residence should still not be claimed as a "main home".
I agree. Her constituency home (where her husband has access to the
video-on-demand account) is her main home. It needn't be so in every case. It
is easy to imagine a London based MP who has a second home in their
provincial constituency for form's sake (Mandelson and Blair spring to mind,
thoiugh I am not singling them out because of their party).
> Anyway,
> she would probably have claimed any such residence in London as her
> second home as that would have been financially advantageous (given
> that London is expensive and her Redditch home doesn't have a moat
> that needs cleaning or acres of meadows that need moving).
Two different sorts of case.
"My moat needs to be cleared" is not a falsehood - and after that it's up to
the Fees Office to consider the claim. At least they know the true facts.
"My main home is my sister's box room" clearly is a falsehood - and those who
have to decide the claim are doing so on the basis of false evidence.
JNugent
> And supporters of Michael Wiener, who called Ms Smith "the Home
> Secretary of England" are in no position to talk of "mental capacity".
Why?
That's what she is, for a few more hours at least.