shurlock

Exactly. Thought it was pretty clear from RK's interviews.

You know exactly what I mean - hence why you changed the subject. Keep flailing away, sunshine.

Yep -and even more of a reason he wouldn't be drawn into firm predictions, endorsements or recommendations -anything that might tie incumbents hands. A serving civil servant -let alone the head of the civil service- wouldn't give an interview. Full stop. This real world business - bit of a strain for you, isn't it?

You think the ultimate civil servant is going to wade into something as contentious and political as the referendum. On record? How odd

Don't forget the DUP- hard to see the lib dems being part of any such arrangement.

Thats what makes the exchange so absurd. Having a pop at the journo for not being flexible enough to be an ostrich, even though it was his own tortured metaphor that cast him in that role in the first place.

No need to ask questions in such a format. If that's how the public views the election, then god forbid, though im pretty sure it takes a certain type of personality with certain political convictions to go on a show like QT, let alone ask questions.

This is cringeworthily daft. To repeat what I've said elsewhere on this thread, it wasn't deregulation; it was a form of rationalisation which freed the BoE to monitor the stability of the system as a whole while empowering the FSA, the newly created independent super-regulator, to deal with conduct of banks and financial actors on the ground. After all, the BoE had missed the collapse of Barings Bank a few years earlier. In isolation, such a division of labour made complete and utter sense. Note that the BoE was not the only actor supervising the financial system. Part of the reason for the FSA's creation is that there were nine other bodies -from Imro to Fimbra- that claimed some regulatory responsibility, creating uncertainty and indecision. Ironically, the establishment of the FSA was delayed because of fears that it would be too powerful. Regulation should have been tighter but nobody was making this argument as long as revenues were flowing into the coffers and a belief in the self-correcting powers of markets held sway. The evidence is that the Tories would have gone a lot further with financial deregulation. Read their 2007 'Freeing Britain to Compete' in which they argued, among other things, that there was no need to regulate mortgage finance as the risk was assumed by the lender, not the client. Talk about adding fuel to the flames of moral hazard and the need for bailouts. Absolutely priceless. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560100/Tories-plan-14bn-cuts-to-red-tape.html

Everyone is declaring the QT audience the main winner of yesterday's debate. But I thought it was dreadful. Nothing more than Tory and Labour partisans regurgitating the propaganda and agenda set by their respective parties to grill the other side's leader. Meanwhile, the disowned Clegg and the Lib Dems got a kicking from both sides, though I'm probably more impressed with them than I was at the previous election when they were everybody's darlings. If those questions had been asked by politicians, they would have been interpreted as further evidence of the reductive, shrill and scripted nature of political debate in this country. But because they were asked by some redfaced, squinty-eyed Yorkshiremen with the gruff appearance of spontaneity, it's all somehow different.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/row-zed/weep-for-sol-campbells-mansion-5612855

Where do they find these thick as pigs**t audiences?

Murphy's a windbag at the best of times and knew NP would be on the back foot, so yeh I thought he handled it pretty well.

Today's chastened, passive-aggressive instalment [video=youtube;s-szdvFAJ3E]

Wingers tend to hug the touch line a lot more under RK than they did under MP where Jrod was effectively an inside forward and had greater flexibility to switch positions. When asked to play a more fixed role, he struggled. MLG, you're better than that.

Nacho looks like a third degree burn victim. Good song, repetitive enough to catch on with our lot. Spurs were singing it on Saturday for Dembele, I believe.

They'll have their day out, then they'll f**k off home.

Nige is at it again. [video=youtube_share;sdRO3l_UCZM] http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/i-think-you-are-an-ostrich-nigel-pearson-launches-bizarre-rant-following-leicester-defeat-to-chelsea-10214182.html

Our goalscoring record suggests otherwise.

Glottal stops - nice one, Les. What did you make of Joey Essex describing your Nige as well reem?

There's basically no difference if you believe that money is the chief determinant of success which means, among other things, being able to invest in a deeper squad. The rest, as others have put it, is just 'dreams and ambitions'.

She'll also be there.

Thought all the nonsense talk about CL was meant to stop once the poisonous dwarf left?

Krugman's article is not immune from criticism (chart 2 is descriptive rather than statistically significant, even in any loose sense) But Nobel Memorial Prize Winner for Economics vs. 5 paragraph rebuttal from fresh-faced, recently graduated researcher at Tory thinktank. Like my 12 yo brother's Sunday league side facing the Galacticos.

Aren't United being strongly linked with Nigel de Jong.

Nowt wrong at all, though the whole-politics-as-aesthetics-and-transcendence-routine has probably thrown up as many right wingers as lefties. Not quite sure that's what motivates Brand, notwithstanding his highly addictive personality.