« MPs pay cut | Main | Slight virtue through flagellation »

June 24, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Tony

Fair enough on the link Paul, I mean the papers have to sell copies etc but were my other figures on the debt we have wrong ?

It still feel slike we do seem some straight talking on this

Paul Flynn

That link Tony is to an uniformed article of poor Commons gossip. That is NOT how it was. Keep reading here for quality gossip.

DG

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/24/banking-city-bonuses-buzzword

Meanwhile, back at the trough...

Tony

Was doing some research on public finances and thought this might show just how tough things are - not very 'prudent'

We work until May 14th each year to pay our taxes
We now work until June 25th to bay for current borrowing
This is 10 days longer than last year

In 1997 36% on the country's income was spent by government

This year it will be 47.5%

We currently owe £2.2 trillion

This is £144,000 per UK household
and if you add in things like PFI costs, nuclear decommissioning costs, civil serice pensions this add an estimated £55,000 per household ..

so this talk of maintining spending will cripple us long after the current government is gone - the estimate is that if we leave things as they are it will take ..... 23 years.. to return to the former 'golden rule' of borrowing

..Excuse me, but any party that offers to sort that out is likely to get my vote - sticking heads in the sand and talking about 'investment' and 'cuts' is frankly peurile - lets have a little realism here r

DG

It makes it looks as though they're terrified of what will come out of it. It has echoes of the attempt to block the expenses details. It could be that in a couple of years time we'll have a re-run of "We knew it was bad, but this is worse than we could have imagined."

Tony

Interesting view on the perception of the votes for the speaker, the Iraq inquiry etc

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylvester/article6557730.ece

We'll see how Bercow gets on but it would have been good to vote openly rather than for tactical advantage as seems to have happened

And as for the Iraq inquiry I think we will get the open inquiry (and I'd dearly love to see Blair giving evidence AND under oath ) - it just seems a shame that the government needs to be dragged kicking to that conclusion - not very open methinks ..

Paul Flynn

Thanks John. The Wintertons are a couple. They share the same defective brain cells. Thanks to Speaker Bercow who called me to refute Mrs Winterton's alarmist rubbish.

Thanks for your pioneering work in trying to educate the Wintertons. Alas, it's probably too late.

John

I notice that it was Ann Winterton hwo camew out with this headline rate of 40% I guess she is married to Sir Nicholas Winterton. Interestingly I wrote to him about some claims he made about cannabis correcting him and shwoing him the science. He wrote back with a long diatribe about cannabis leading to crack cocaine and repeating most of the exaggerated claims churned out by the Daily Mail.
I wrote back to him demolishing everything he said using at that time the recently released report from the ACMD which he obviously hadn't read. I am still waiting for a reply..............

John

The problem with stating risks of 40% for skunk is that it is misleading. That is 40% of the mean risk for schizophrnia which is around 1%. Professor Nutt put this risk into context by saying in the highest risk group males 16-24 males we would have to stop 5000 people users to stop one case of schizophrenia.That is a real risk of .002% Now if this risk was real we would have expected a rise in the overall rate of schizophrenia above the historical average of around 1%. THis has not occured so seems to indicate that the hypothesis of increasing use of cannabis is causitive to an increase in schizophrnia is false.
What gets me in this whole debate is the discriminatory and prejudiced way that cannabis users are treated by the law. Here we have 8000 people dieing from alcohol last year nearly 80,000 from tobacco yet this is tolerated. Noone dies from cannabis and the mental health dangerts are many times more with alcohol than cannabis.
We have according to NHS direct 106,000 in longterm care with mental health problems caused by alcohol in 06/07.
The politicians hypocrisy in their treatment of the 3 to 4 million regular cananbis users in the uK means thay have absolutley no credibility. All cannabis users want is the same rights and treatment before the law than there alcohol drinking fellow citizens.
Just as it wuld be odious to treat someone differant for the religion that they may choose why do we accept the demonisation and discrimination towards our fellow citizens that choose a differant drug than those that the state currently sanctions.

The comments to this entry are closed.