bridge too far

I never claimed they did match. I don't know the publication dates of either set of figures. But I see what you mean about the text contradicting the graphic. It matches with other countries. That site claims its data comes from the CIA but it doesn't match the previous link I provided. So who knows what the actual figures are? I did Google but couldn't find anything more current or, indeed, with any publication date. But they do palpably demonstrate that, compared with many other 'developed' countries, we're actually not doing so badly.

Here's some interesting data on national debt: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html produced by the CIA so it must be right. We're way down that list. And here is a picture, if you don't want to look at a table: http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/ This is undated but, judging by the comments at the bottom of the page, I would imagine it is no older than 6 months.

well

He was - but he gave up his non-dom status in March this year.

Labour rewarded one banker and that was a couple of years before the global crisis. If Lord Ashcroft paid his dues instead of farming off his fortune to his wife, his taxes would go some way to reducing the need to cut benefits for those who need it most. He feels so strongly about being a Conservative that he's forgone the Treasureship of the party rather than pay his taxes.

tried

That's one error each then. I meant Lord Ashcroft (as you well know). The point stands.

The Boulevard of Broken Dreams by Tony Bennett. It's the trailer music for The Apprentice. I liked it so much I Shazamed it to find out what it was.

I see you and raise you Lord Ashdown. I don't need to say any more than that

There was a good piece on him in today's Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/oct/04/west-bromwich-bolton-wanderers-premier-league

Yay!

Looks like they want us to bail them out some more! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11462440 Perhaps if they'd saved the 'bonus' money, they'd have enough in the coffers to avoid a further bailout. You know - rainy day and all that.

means

My daughter's child care costs her £50 per day per child. That's roughly £1K a month for one child. She also gets child care vouchers but remember these are just a way of paying for childcare pre-tax. Not all employers give them (my other daughter's employers don't). http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/family/childcare-vouchers

I won't hold my breath Sweet of the boy to think of his friends though - I admire him for that

According to the Government, 88% of prescription items are dispensed free of charge. http://www.politics.co.uk/briefings-guides/issue-briefs/health/nhs-prescription-charges-$366605.htm If people were charged to visit the doctor, many of the poorest might not attend, in spite of the fact that they might well have a serious but undiagnosed problem. However, once the condition was diagnosed and prescribed for, the poorest wouldn't have to pay for the prescription anyway because they'd be exempt. If people truly felt the need to pay to see a GP, they could always see one privately.

You still don't get it, do you This is the proposal. If a family has only one wage earner and that wage earner earns over £44K a year, the family will lose its entitlement to Child Benefit. If, however, a family has two wage earners and, jointly, they earn £88K a year, they will continue to receive Child Benefit. Do you now understand what I'm querying? I'm not commenting on whether or not Child Benefit should be withdrawn from high earning families. I'm commenting on the crazy proposal to penalise one sort of family but not an even wealthier sort of family. Stark raving mad! Afterthought how can Labour oppose thecuts when even the Coalition doesn't know what the cuts are going to be? So far, all we're seeing is, for example, "we're going to change the benefit system but not until 2013" and "we're going to consider Trident but not until after the next election".

So, like the Chancellor, you don't see the ambiguity in his proposal then? No doubt the parent earning £88K in a single earning household will find a loophole to ensure that the non-earning partner gets 'paid' to qualify for the benefit. Child Benefit and its precursor, Family Allowance, has always been paid to all families since its inception in 1946. So the previous government carried on what countless administrations had done before. And yes I would definitely be on the side of a family struggling to make ends meet on £1000 a month (£12K a year) - wouldn't everyone?

One of my daughters used to de-leg crane flies (when she was a toddler I should add) and I'd find lots of bodies on the floor I have a phobia about IKEA.

I'm not querying the underlying principle at all - I'm pointing out the anomaly whereby a family with two wage earners and a JOINT salary of over £88K WILL get the benefit but a family with one wage earner earning over £44K won't. Obviously Gorgeous George hasn't done his sums

Quite right - but do you not agree that it is very, very odd that a family where both earn c £44K will continue to receive this benefit, whereas a family with only one wage-earner earning this amount will no longer receive it?

There's live text commentary here, if it's any help: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/golf/9056229.stm

Am I glad I've retired

Lots of India holidays here: http://www.guardianholidayoffers.co.uk/Search?startdate=05-Oct-2010&country=101&passengers=2

Georgie Porgie has started already: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11464300 But how crazy is this - if you are a single parent (mother or father) and you earn over £44K a year, you will lose your Child Benefit. However, if you are a couple, EACH EARNING £44k A YEAR, you won't!