Discussion
Greenie said:
avinalarf said:
Oooops.....he's blown it .....( perhaps that's the wrong phrase to use )
It's been reported that Corbyn has today said that there are NO circumstances that he'd press the nuclear button.
So is the plan he will have to commit to trident or half the shadow cabinet will walk but will not use the deterrent under any circumstance?It's been reported that Corbyn has today said that there are NO circumstances that he'd press the nuclear button.
Sounds good.
Strocky said:
You should have stopped before you posted your stat 
It was'nt even a Scottish Record
http://www.scottishleague.net/forum/viewtopic.php?...
Without wanting to take this way off topic the linked list was for home crowds, not cup finals, play-offs or anything else. The record stands. Quite surprised that you played the ball and not the man though given your views on our club and it's history. Well done. Shame you missed the ball.It was'nt even a Scottish Record
http://www.scottishleague.net/forum/viewtopic.php?...
Wikipedia said:
The attendance of 146,433 for the 1937 Scottish Cup Final between Celtic and Aberdeen at Hampden Park is a European record for a club match. Rangers' record attendance of 118,567 at Ibrox is a British record for a league match.
mybrainhurts said:
Greenie said:
avinalarf said:
Oooops.....he's blown it .....( perhaps that's the wrong phrase to use )
It's been reported that Corbyn has today said that there are NO circumstances that he'd press the nuclear button.
So is the plan he will have to commit to trident or half the shadow cabinet will walk but will not use the deterrent under any circumstance?It's been reported that Corbyn has today said that there are NO circumstances that he'd press the nuclear button.
Sounds good.
andymadmak said:
Did not hear his R4 interview, but according to the BBC Mr Corbyn has committed to not using the nuclear deterrent under any circumstances.
So, if he were to win the 2020 election, we would at least have a clear indication of when an enemy attack was likely to commence....
Just clocked it on the news. I am afraid this will appeal to wishy washy thinkingSo, if he were to win the 2020 election, we would at least have a clear indication of when an enemy attack was likely to commence....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34399565
technodup said:
Strocky said:
You should have stopped before you posted your stat
It was'nt even a Scottish Record
http://www.scottishleague.net/forum/viewtopic.php?...
Without wanting to take this way off topic the linked list was for home crowds, not cup finals, play-offs or anything else. The record stands. Quite surprised that you played the ball and not the man though given your views on our club and it's history. Well done. Shame you missed the ball.It was'nt even a Scottish Record
http://www.scottishleague.net/forum/viewtopic.php?...
Wikipedia said:
The attendance of 146,433 for the 1937 Scottish Cup Final between Celtic and Aberdeen at Hampden Park is a European record for a club match. Rangers' record attendance of 118,567 at Ibrox is a British record for a league match.
http://www.sambafoot.com/en/news/24837_fourth-tier...
FredClogs said:
The cost of watching football is rising, and fast...
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/29614980
Watching it at home is becoming prohibitively expensive for a lot of people, the crowd may be more plural but they're certainly wealthier (Southampton's record attendance at St Mary's was in 2012, the year they promoted back to the prem) and if that trend continues the niche of people able to attend and view games will narrow... Is this desirable, does it create a sustainable economy?
I don't call you names, you don't have to reply or even read my posts, I don't know what you think you can achieve by not engaging the argument properly and throwing around petty minded insults.
I wasn't trying to be rude, just expressing my exasperation in your constant refrain of "okay but..." and some advice to you to maybe fact-check before hitting Submit. http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/29614980
Watching it at home is becoming prohibitively expensive for a lot of people, the crowd may be more plural but they're certainly wealthier (Southampton's record attendance at St Mary's was in 2012, the year they promoted back to the prem) and if that trend continues the niche of people able to attend and view games will narrow... Is this desirable, does it create a sustainable economy?
I don't call you names, you don't have to reply or even read my posts, I don't know what you think you can achieve by not engaging the argument properly and throwing around petty minded insults.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
This isn't the same contributor who has been moaning in other threads about the reception he gets in NPE, is it? Couldn't be...In the UK we used to have something called the Net Book Agreement. Have a look, it may surprise you that we used to have to fixed prices, and a limited number of outlets. Books were regarded as expensive - even a luxury - hence the popularity of libraries. That has all changed.
Same for alcoholic drinks bought 'off licence'. Few outlets, restricted opening hours, higher prices.
In a World of instant communication and widespread access to huge knowledge, trying to operate fixed price mechanisms will be futile unless you can control the distribution.
Having seen the recent 'deal' over planned energy prices from the new nuke, my faith in state planning and contract management could not be lower. And that's under the putative Tories.
Back to Corbymania - if he accepts as matter of principle he'd never pull the nuclear trigger, there's very little point spending billions having any of it. So presumably his shadow budget will have a surplus...
The Don of Croy said:
Same for alcoholic drinks bought 'off licence'. Few outlets, restricted opening hours, higher prices.
In a World of instant communication and widespread access to huge knowledge, trying to operate fixed price mechanisms will be futile unless you can control the distribution.
The usual way for government to control pricing is via tax, see tobacco, petrol etc, rather than directly setting the price.In a World of instant communication and widespread access to huge knowledge, trying to operate fixed price mechanisms will be futile unless you can control the distribution.
Not that that's stopping the Scottish 'government' trying to force a minimum price per unit of alcohol.
Why won't government just f
k off and stop meddling?technodup said:
he usual way for government to control pricing is via tax, see tobacco, petrol etc, rather than directly setting the price.
Not that that's stopping the Scottish 'government' trying to force a minimum price per unit of alcohol.
Why won't government just fk off and stop meddling?
Perhaps because the Government's subjects can't stop eating and drinking themselves into terrible health, leading to massive costs.Not that that's stopping the Scottish 'government' trying to force a minimum price per unit of alcohol.
Why won't government just f
k off and stop meddling?durbster said:
Perhaps because the Government's subjects can't stop eating and drinking themselves into terrible health, leading to massive costs.
So let them die. The rest of us would soon change our behaviour if the weakest were allowed to perish. And if we didn't? Well we'd know what happens.The state intervening at every turn to try to nudge us this way then that way costs a fortune, annoys millions and gets us nowhere fast.
sanf said:
This. As politician of the 80's looking to the ethos of the 60's he is in completely the wrong time time. I want a 21st century politician, looking to the future, not someone looking at the past and failed ideas from 30 years ago, stuck in the 20th century when the UK and global economy looked very different to now.
He has a nice sentiment, but fundamentally bad policies - optimism over pragmatism. He's an uninspiring speaker, and not passionate enough to whip up the frenzy - his timing around the clapping on his key points was badly managed in the speech. Maybe that will change and evolve, but early signs aren't promising.
Free beer for all!He has a nice sentiment, but fundamentally bad policies - optimism over pragmatism. He's an uninspiring speaker, and not passionate enough to whip up the frenzy - his timing around the clapping on his key points was badly managed in the speech. Maybe that will change and evolve, but early signs aren't promising.
That man in the corner - no not that one - the other one - is paying.
durbster said:
Perhaps because the Government's subjects can't stop eating and drinking themselves into terrible health, leading to massive costs.
The smokers always say it's self balancing between the amount the treasury receives from cigarette companies and smokers in duty and taxation vs the cost of heart and cancer victims on the NHS. As I don't smoke it's not something I've ever looked into but there's certainly a logic to the argument. RichB said:
durbster said:
Perhaps because the Government's subjects can't stop eating and drinking themselves into terrible health, leading to massive costs.
The smokers always say it's self balancing between the amount the treasury receives from cigarette companies and smokers in duty and taxation vs the cost of heart and cancer victims on the NHS. As I don't smoke it's not something I've ever looked into but there's certainly a logic to the argument. RichB said:
The smokers always say it's self balancing between the amount the treasury receives from cigarette companies and smokers in duty and taxation vs the cost of heart and cancer victims on the NHS. As I don't smoke it's not something I've ever looked into but there's certainly a logic to the argument.
More than self balancing. Receivables are double the attendant costs, if I recall correctly.iphonedyou said:
RichB said:
The smokers always say it's self balancing between the amount the treasury receives from cigarette companies and smokers in duty and taxation vs the cost of heart and cancer victims on the NHS. As I don't smoke it's not something I've ever looked into but there's certainly a logic to the argument.
More than self balancing. Receivables are double the attendant costs, if I recall correctly.Indeed £14bn Tax revenue vs highest estimate of £6bn cost (some much lower)
Gargamel said:
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/does_smoking_cost_...
Indeed £14bn Tax revenue vs highest estimate of £6bn cost (some much lower)
I'd love to know if anyone has done the figures using the saving of lives from smoking related illnesses as being nothing more than a deferral of death costs, which are of course inevitable.Indeed £14bn Tax revenue vs highest estimate of £6bn cost (some much lower)
Reduced tax intake from duty and very similar NHS and care costs for an older population taking longer to croak.
RichB said:
durbster said:
Perhaps because the Government's subjects can't stop eating and drinking themselves into terrible health, leading to massive costs.
The smokers always say it's self balancing between the amount the treasury receives from cigarette companies and smokers in duty and taxation vs the cost of heart and cancer victims on the NHS. As I don't smoke it's not something I've ever looked into but there's certainly a logic to the argument. 
Ali G said:
RichB said:
durbster said:
Perhaps because the Government's subjects can't stop eating and drinking themselves into terrible health, leading to massive costs.
The smokers always say it's self balancing between the amount the treasury receives from cigarette companies and smokers in duty and taxation vs the cost of heart and cancer victims on the NHS. As I don't smoke it's not something I've ever looked into but there's certainly a logic to the argument. WinstonWolf said:
Ali G said:
RichB said:
durbster said:
Perhaps because the Government's subjects can't stop eating and drinking themselves into terrible health, leading to massive costs.
The smokers always say it's self balancing between the amount the treasury receives from cigarette companies and smokers in duty and taxation vs the cost of heart and cancer victims on the NHS. As I don't smoke it's not something I've ever looked into but there's certainly a logic to the argument. All I dreamed about I forgot.
All I did I forgot.
There's a turd in my kecks.
Not Alzheimers yet then!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff