trousers

I'm no expert on EU laws (does it show?!) but are the rules about letting people wander freely from one EU 'state' to the other realty as unconditional as people say? Surely there must be some basic qualifying criteria? If not, when on earth did I miss the vote on that one...?

Relaxation? Interesting choice of word. My understanding is that it was a shift of focus from low risk categories to high risk categories of people. I believe they managed to trap more high risk people that way (I think the oft used phrase at thus juncture is: "no s**t Sherlock". But, by all means continue to use the rather more emotive interpretation if that makes you feel better. ;-)

Without having a breakdown of the 2010 figures quoted it's not possible to deduce whether they were "lying" or not. And if you think that the policies of an outgoing government can be unpicked and unravelled at the drop of a hat then some might venture that is as naive a view on the mechanics of government as it is naive of prospective governments to claim they can turn things around on "day 1". There's a difference between "starting to tackle" a problem on 'Day 1' and "fixing a problem outright" on 'Day 1' I agree that we shouldn't necessarily dwell on the politics on this issue but if one is going to mention the political side of things lets at least ratify and/or establish the underlying facts first. Just an observation.

Why mention that "it happened on the Tories watch" if it was intended as an a-political statement?

Ah, my bad (partially)....found this... http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/Labour-Euro-chief-backing-changes-EU-rules-wake/story-13686978-detail/story.html My recall was that the tendering process that Labour put in place had hand-tied the coalition government to see it through to it's natural conclusion, along the path that Labour had already set it down, but it would appear they would have been within their rights to start the tender process all over again. That said, as the above article states, the government argued that to u-turn on Labour's original tender document would have cost money and time and would not have been in the long term interests of the UK tax payer (in their judgement). So, yes, I agree that the coalition could, and maybe should, have u-turned the process Labour started but I would call that more a "judgement call" than a "fiasco". Although I accept that the word "fiasco" is much more sensaltionalist and thus more suited to stoking up the debate.... IMHO of course

Link?

This is one area where I will happily criticise the Tories for not acting quickly enough. The gaping floodgates should have been closed on 'day 1' in May 2010. That said, those figures cover the whole of 2010 so do we know what the half year split was (given the best part of half that time was on Labour's watch)? I guess some might even argue that an incoming government can't act instantly on something like this anyway, so it could be argued I supposed that 2010 figures are largely down to Labour's policies. Damn, there was I happy to criticise my beloved Tories...!

Can't make my mind up on this one....

Yeah, sorry, I saw that I'd made that slightly skewed logical leap when I read it back. It's an assumption that a lot of people make though...

Two years?, surely it should be instant? Boom. Tish. :-)

That "Myths of Thatcherism" piece is written by a staunch anti-capitalist. It's not my handy work. I just follow the SWF law of quoting articles that suit my argument.... ;-)

The very samne "Bombardier fiasco" that was instigated by the hand-tieing legislation introduced by the last Labour government?

Steady with the compliments sir....

In an attempt to keep Britain in the global race towards unbridled international capitalism.... Knock capitalism as much as you like (I don't like its excesses) but don't blame Thatcher for somehow creating the phenomenon http://spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5841 Myth No.2: Thatcher invented ‘Thatcherism’ That Thatcherism was a ruthless response to economic crisis rather than a one-woman ideology is clear from the fact that Margaret Thatcher did not invent it. Many of the measures described today as ‘Thatcherism’ were first pursued by Ted Heath’s Conservative government in the early 1970s. With the onset of economic decline, Heath also attempted to bring to an end the postwar politics of consensus in favour of top-down crisis management. Heath, too, elected in 1970, sought to cut state assistance to failing industries, reduce public spending, impose a fixed income policy, and dent – if not smash – the power of trade unions. However, Heath failed. A seven-week strike by the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) helped to bring down Heath’s government: he called a General Election in February 1974 to bolster confidence in his government, but lost to Labour. One of the key reasons why Heath failed where Thatcher later succeeded is because, during his rule, the working classes in Britain were generally well-organised and unwilling to have wage cuts or fixed income policies imposed upon them from above. It is striking that where the NUM brought down Heath’s ‘Thatcherite’ policies in 1974, the same union was defeated by Thatcher’s ‘Thatcherite’ policies 10 years later in 1984/1985. So what changed between Heath and Thatcher’s eras to make what is now known as ‘Thatcherism’ – the shaking out of industry and the creation of mass unemployment – seemingly more successful? This is where the intervening Labour government of 1974 to 1979 comes in. Labour PMs Harold Wilson and James Callaghan played a key role in building on ‘Heathism’ and preparing the ground for ‘Thatcherism’. As economic decline worsened in the late 1970s, the Labour governments called on the unions to face up to the need for austerity and sacrifice. They argued that there would have to be a reduction in public expenditure in favour of ‘prudent housekeeping’, and oversaw the rise of mass unemployment on the basis that ‘protecting the economy’ was more important than ensuring everyone had a job and a livelihood. Unemployment doubled between 1975 and 1976; by 1977 more than 1.5million people were out of work. When the working classes stood up to this Labour-led attack on their living standards, with the strikes that made up the ‘winter of discontent’ in 1979, Labour launched an anti-union offensive, with Callaghan accusing strikers of engaging in ‘free collective vandalism’ and unions of ‘abus[ing] their great strength’ . This anti-union sentiment was taken up with vigour by Thatcher when she was elected in 1979. The defining event between the Heath government of 1970 to 1974 and the Thatcher government of 1979 to 1990 was the Labour administration’s demoralisation of the working classes. In educating the workers about the need for austerity in order to prop up the capitalist system, and in introducing mass unemployment and further demonising ‘union power’, Labour paved the way for ‘Thatcherism’. This is the dirty secret of Thatcherite economics: it sprung from a deep-rooted capitalist crisis at least 10 years before Thatcher actually took power, and its fermentation was assisted by Labour.

The "destruction" of our manufacturing base started in the 70s...

Yet more good news for the UK economy: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/11/24/uk-britain-nestle-jobs-idUKTRE7AN04R20111124 Thu Nov 24, 2011 2:14am GMT LONDON (Reuters) - Nestle is creating 300 jobs with a 110 million pound expansion of a coffee production plant in Derbyshire, the food group said on Thursday. The expansion will treble the capacity of the its Tutbury factory in central England which makes coffee sold under the NESCAFÉ Dolce Gusto brand. The workforce will grow to 800 from its current 500 over the next two years. Prime Minister David Cameron, battling rising unemployment, welcomed the announcement. "Manufacturing is crucial to the new economy we are building - an economy where we're making and selling the products the world wants to buy," he said in a statement. "This investment shows the confidence that there is in the UK, it is clear that we have got a great manufacturing future."

Yet more good news for the UK economy: http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/pm-welcomes-toyotas-100m-investment-in-uk-manufacturing/ Investment will create up to 1,500 additional jobs in the next two years Today, the Prime Minister visited Toyota in Derbyshire to welcome significant investment. Toyota announced investment of more than £100 million to manufacture their new generation hatchbacks at their Burnaston factory, creating up to 1,500 additional jobs in the next two years. Mr Cameron said: “This major announcement from Toyota is fantastic news and a massive vote of confidence for UK manufacturing. “This investment and the jobs it will create provide a terrific boost not just to the local economy but to the whole country, and is a tribute to the great skill, hard work and sheer professionalism shown by the Toyota workforce. Toyota’s commitment to the UK shows the growing strength of the UK car industry – it is our great British success story. “It is vital that we build a more balanced economy, one with manufacturing, innovation and exports at its heart. The automotive sector is leading the way in helping us achieve this – it is an extraordinary success story and one that we are very proud of.” Toyota is to build all its new generation C-segment family sized hatchback models at its Burnaston car plant in Derbyshire.

Hmmm....I just went to read a news article on Convers Sports news page....coincidently the one they published on 1st June about Convers Sports taking over a certain South Coast football club.....but they seem to have deleted it for some reason.... Here's the original URL: http://www.converssport.com/news/convers-sports-initiatives-complete-takeover-portsmouth-fc?page=1 Now, if only Google had cached the aforementioned news page.... Doh....

Nice work Gruffalo :-) And welcome to the the SWF...we do like new mystery posters on here.... ;-)

Funny, that's exactly what my wife said last night..... ;-)

jordansibley Jordan Sibley At Staplewood for interviews ahead of Saturday's trip to Brizzle. Expect the truth to be set straight over a rumoured loan deal. #saintsfc 2 minutes ago

I see it as a 'foot in the door' scenario. If the goal line experiement goes well then I can see it gradually being rolled out to other areas of the game. IMHO of course

Good of you to remind us that deficit costs more to service in interest payments than the entire defence budget.... ;-)