Johnny Bognor

True, the current recession is a synchronised recession which means the blame can't all be placed at Fraudon's doorstep. However, there is one massive difference with 1980. Thatcher inherited a mess before the 1980 recession. Fraudon didn't put anything by in the boom years leading up to this recession. He was so far up his own arse that he thought he had abolished boom and bust. Therefore although Fraudon can't be blamed for the current recession, he can be blamed for not having us on a better footing before the recession. The only reason why unemployment isn't currently above 3 million is that he has borrowed billions to employ an extra 500,000 people in Public Services. If we as a country lived within our means, unemployment now would be as bad as the early 80's, but I don't see anyone planning to **** on Fraudon's grave.

That's right, it was all HER fault as no one else suffered recession in 1980. Oh wait a minute........ Highly synchronized recessions ........ the study looks at episodes of highly synchronized recessions, defined as those where 10 or more countries were simultaneously in recession. In addition to the current cycle, there were three other episodes of highly synchronized recessions: 1975, 1980, and 1992. These recessions were on average longer and deeper. Distinct from other episodes, the recoveries from these recessions feature much weaker export growth, especially if the United States is also in recession. (Source: IMF http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2009/res041609b.htm) That's right, it was all HER fault as no one else suffered recession in 1992. Oh wait a minute........ Highly synchronized recessions ........ the study looks at episodes of highly synchronized recessions, defined as those where 10 or more countries were simultaneously in recession. In addition to the current cycle, there were three other episodes of highly synchronized recessions: 1975, 1980 and 1992. These recessions were on average longer and deeper. Distinct from other episodes, the recoveries from these recessions feature much weaker export growth, especially if the United States is also in recession. (Source: IMF http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2009/res041609b.htm) Catch my drift?

What are they charging per transaction? (Dune, that one's for you)

It was designed by cross party conscensus during WW2, by a cabinet led by Churchill. Here is Churchill's 1945 election manifesto: http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/con45.htm See his promises under health. Labour implemented it (because they won the election), but they didn't invent it all on their own (although they would have you believe otherwise). Don't believe the hype.

You do have a point re contracting out and of course you could include the new high earners in the banks which would pull up the averages for the Public Sector, see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1038029/New-boss-Northern-Rock-highest-paid-worker-public-sector.html (not mentioning that this would pull down the averages at the higher end of the private sector). But the analysis also excludes many of the illegally paid private sector workers who earn less than the minimum wage which somewhat moves the goal posts back again. The facts do show that on balance the public sector have it easier (paid more / work less + more benefits), which is why it gets my goat when they complain. You would expect lower paid private sector workers to moan as they have more right too. This makes the position of BA Cabin Crew more distasteful.

Shh! If you keep quiet enough, the socialists will conveniently forget this as it goes against their agenda. Get back on track.... Maggie = Boooooooooo

The facts do not back up your assertion, the people you know are not truly representative or they are comparing themselves to the wrong people. See: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE-2009/2009_pps.pdf Then download table 13.7a The Public Sector are better paid in every percentile, excluding the top 20% of all earners. This has been the case since 1984. So the vast majority of public sector workers are paid more than their private sector equivalents (Not taking account of job security, pensions, holidays, paid sick and all the other benefits enjoyed by public sector workers). What you find in the statistics is that there is more pay equality in the Public Sector. The lowest paid in the public sector are paid more than the lowest paid in the private sector. At the same time, the highest paid in the private sector are paid more than the highest paid in the public sector. However, in table 13.9a, private sector workers work more hours in every percentile when compared to public sector workers, so we move on to table 13.5a which shows: 1. The bottom 10% of earners in the private sector earn £5.99 per hour (compared to £7.34 in the public sector) 2. If you are a middle earner in the private sector you get £11.84 compared to £14.95 in the public sector 3. In the top 10% of earners, the average private sector worker enjoys £24.29 per hour which is LESS than the top 10% in the public sector who get £24.77 per hour. All of the stats show that private sector workers earn less and work more (Not taking account of public sector benefits such as job security, pensions, holidays, paid sick and all the other benefits) Public Sector workers have no case to moan as they have it cushy according to the facts. In my opinion, BA cabin crew have it even easier than public sector workers (and every other British airline).

There are plenty of mass debaters on the politics forum, for sure.

Threads entitled "Things that make you laugh"

Bottle

Bader was partly based at RAF Tangmere (just outside Chichester). The base has gone although a lot of the airfield remains. The local is called The Bader Arms, which I think takes the **** a little bit. The standing joke is that you go down to the Bader Arms to get legless.

pies (as in who ate all the pies)

rage (as in against)

Scoreline

Editorial

Socialism is not about a decent education and healthcare. Socialism is about economic organisation and the means of production being owned by the state (or the people, if you believe the rhetorik). People won't amass any wealth (if you ignore the socialist political leaders who end up controlling the wealth) as all the means of creating the wealth is owned by the state. You could argue that capitalism requires good education and helathcare in order to maximise and sustain wealth creation.

Fabrication

I wouldn't balance transfer if you are paying it off in June. The 3% transfer fee will be more than your 1.5% (approx) monthly interest charge with Barclaycard. Even if you don't pay it off until the end of July, you still break even by not transferring. If you plan to run the balance for 3+ months, then it might make sense to transfer. I know we're only talking about £5 or £10 here, but I wouldn't want to give the feckers any more than I have to.

If you want to keep your private life out of the public eye, don't pay your public funded expenses to your 'private' partner. If it wasn't for the coalition, he would be fired. Dave came down the hardest on his own MPs when the scandal first broke, but he can't do much about this for fear of upsetting his new bed fellows.

Shhhh! Don't tell anyone that immigration is more likely when an economy is booming and as ours isn't, which makes coming here less attractive (not to mention the weak pound which doesn't go as far 'back home', which makes staying here less attractive).

Not at all. More a case of hypocricy of the highest level. Don't you think there is nothing better than a union man turned toff?

Prescott = worst kind of socialist

Oh WT, how silly of me. I would like it put on record right now that I am eternally greatful to the benefit cheats and their overall "contribution" to society .