Plan A

[Boomstick]

So you're telling me, Boomstick, that you wear a coat under your suit? cos if you look at what you've just posted that's effectively it.

yeah course it is

[BillyStubbsTears]

So why would he wear something akin to a donkey jacket OVER the suit?

Let's have a think.

Errr...cos it was the middle of November it was f**king freezing and he was nearly 70 years old?

How does that sound for a reason for wearing an expensive winter coat over a suit?

[Sprotyrover]

 Billy why does our current mayor need to spend £34 k on a Political advisor is she taking the piss or is she just not competent enough to do the job

[Boomstick]

Why not choose a smarter coat? a little scruffy and disrespectful is it not?

[RedJ]

So you're telling me, Boomstick, that you wear a coat under your suit? cos if you look at what you've just posted that's effectively it.

yeah course it is

Well it is. You're asking why on earth you'd wear a "donkey jacket" over a suit - how the f**k else are you meant to wear a coat?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Sproty.

I've no idea. It is of course, entirely legal under the legislation covering Elected Mayors, and it is something that her predecessor also did:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/975/regulation/3/made

Appointment of elected mayor’s assistant

3.  (1)  An elected mayor of a local authority may appoint not more than one person (an “assistant”) to provide assistance to him.

(2) Any appointment of an assistant is an appointment as an employee of the authority.

(3) No appointment of an assistant shall be such as to extend beyond—

(a)the term of office for which the elected mayor was elected; or

(b)where the elected mayor ceases to be the elected mayor before the end of the term of office for which he was elected, the date on which he ceases to hold that office.

(4) Subject to paragraphs (7) and (8), an assistant shall be employed on such terms and conditions (including conditions as to remuneration) as the elected mayor thinks fit, within the financial resources available to the authority.

(5) Where the elected mayor appoints an assistant, he shall report to the authority in writing—

(a)the name of the assistant; and

(b)the terms and conditions on which the assistant has been appointed.

(6) An assistant is to be regarded for the purposes of Part I of the 1989 Act (political restriction of officers and staff) as holding a politically restricted post under the local authority.

(7) Subject to paragraph (8), section 9(1), (3), (4), (8), (8A), (8B) and (9) of the 1989 Act(1) (assistants for political groups), and any order made by the Secretary of State under section 9(4a) of the 1989 Act, shall apply in relation to the appointment of an assistant as if any appointment to that post were the appointment of a person in pursuance of that section.

(8) Subsection (3) of section 9 of the 1989 Act shall apply in relation to the appointment of an assistant as if the words from and including “and that the appointment terminates” to the end of that subsection were omitted.

 You could put in a Freedom of Information request to the Council with respect to the part I've highlighted in bold. Then you could find out why the Mayor thinks she needs that assistance.

I have my own opinions, but they aren't worth much without some additional info and facts.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Why not choose a smarter coat? a little scruffy and disrespectful is it not?

Boomstick.

Just shows what shit they sell in these upper class shops, dunt it? Me, I'd work on the assumption that if I bought some clobber from Harrods, the Establishment would take me to their collective busom.

[Boomstick]

It can be argued quite successfully that he wore a coat that was or at least resembled a donkey jacket in order to make a political point. why not choose a smarter coat to be more respectful, was it to agitate his political rivals?

[Boomstick]

Why not choose a smarter coat? a little scruffy and disrespectful is it not?

Boomstick.

Just shows what shit they sell in these upper class shops, dunt it? Me, I'd work on the assumption that if I bought some clobber from Harrods, the Establishment would take me to their collective busom.

Don't really know what clobber they sell in Harrods, never been in and probably never will! me, I'll stick to primary and burtons if I'm feeling flush!

[Boomstick]

Why not choose a smarter coat? a little scruffy and disrespectful is it not?

Boomstick.

Just shows what shit they sell in these upper class shops, dunt it? Me, I'd work on the assumption that if I bought some clobber from Harrods, the Establishment would take me to their collective busom.

Don't really know what clobber they sell in Harrods, never been in and probably never will! me, I'll stick to primark and burtons if I'm feeling flush!

[BillyStubbsTears]

It can be argued quite successfully that he wore a coat that was or at least resembled a donkey jacket in order to make a political point. why not choose a smarter coat to be more respectful, was it to agitate his political rivals?

And THAT is precisely the point that the likes of the Mail wanted to keep lodged in the public mind. And it is precisely the opposite of how Michael Foot thought and operated. If he had wanted to be deliberately disrespectful to goad people and make a point, he would have worn dockers and a donkey jacket. Instead, he wore a suit and a coat from Harrods.

[Boomstick]

It can be argued quite successfully that he wore a coat that was or at least resembled a donkey jacket in order to make a political point. why not choose a smarter coat to be more respectful, was it to agitate his political rivals?

And THAT is precisely the point that the likes of the Mail wanted to keep lodged in the public mind. And it is precisely the opposite of how Michael Foot thought and operated. If he had wanted to be deliberately disrespectful to goad people and make a point, he would have worn dockers and a donkey jacket. Instead, he wore a suit and a coat from Harrods.

He could have chosen a nicer coat though....

[BillyStubbsTears]

Aye. And that satorial choice made him unsuitable to be Prime Minister.

Whereas Tony Blair never looked anything less than impeccably dressed.

[CusworthRovers]

I thought it was horrendous how Foot and Kinnock were treated by the press. Clothing, hair colour, class issues.

In reality it was just the national press refusing to allow a slightly left of centre Labour leader anywhere near No10.

It's funny how they left John Smith and Blair alone, to the point of siding with Blair. Both wanted to take Labour to the right to get them elected after 4 terms out. Brown didn't get what Kinnock and Foot got. 

As soon as a possible left of centre leader returns, the press turn all savage again. The likes not seen, since, well Kinnock and Foot really. 

[IC1967]

As soon as a possible left of centre leader returns, the press turn all savage again. The likes not seen, since, well Kinnock and Foot really.

You make some good points. Unfortunately lefties don't learn the lessons of history. I don't condone the behaviour of the press but if it keeps a leftie Labour government out of office then I'll go along with it.

[IC1967]

Plan A is working. Plan B is dead.

Ed Balls always said that austerity stalled the recovery in 2010. He also said that the government would need to change course for growth to come back. He also said we'd have an extra million on the dole figures.

The government and the Office for Budget Responsibility, among others always said it was external factors such as the eurozone crisis and higher prices that made our recovery so slow.

Now those external factors have receded and UK growth has accelerated sharply, even though there there has been no let-up in the pace of austerity.

So, the government was right, and Ed Balls was wrong, both about the cause of the slowdown, and the best way to overcome it.

[Glyn_Wigley]

But why didn't we do what the rest of the world did and enjoy the growth they've had that we've missed out on due to blindly following Plan A?

[IC1967]

B

ut why didn't we do what the rest of the world did and enjoy the growth they've had that we've missed out on due to blindly following Plan A?

I'm afraid that's far too simplistic a statement. Its simply not true that the rest of the world has enjoyed growth. Some of the ones that have, e.g. the USA, will suffer terrible consequences in the future due to their continuing addiction to debt.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Christ up above. It's like Groundhog Day without the chance of getting tops and fingers wi Andie MacDowell.

Mick. What's the USA's current deficit?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Its simply not true that the rest of the world has enjoyed growth.

So that story you provided us the link to that says the rest of the world has growth of 1% more than the UK is made up of crap data? You really ought to make sure the stuff you're linking to is correct.

[IC1967]

So that story you provided us the link to that says the rest of the world has growth of 1% more than the UK is made up of crap data? You really ought to make sure the stuff you're linking to is correct.

Like I said you are being far too simplistic. I'll spell it out. Some countries have had better growth than us, some have had worse. You would expect emerging economies to have higher growth than mature economies like ours. Indeed this is what happens and pushes up the rest of the world average. So its not a case that the rest of the world has got one uniform different policy to us that explains the figures and why their overall average is higher than ours.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick.

Forget emerging economies (you didn't when you were blathering on about Latvia when you were Mickv3.0, but I see you've learned now). Look at what has happened to developed economies since the Austerity Mania took hold.



I'll spell it out for you. This graph is retrospective IMF data of what the ACTUAL change in growth between 2008-2012 was for 27 leading economies (vertical axis) against the amount of Austerity that they experienced during that time (horizontal axis).

Draw your own conclusions.

PS: What's the USA's current deficit?

[IC1967]

My conclusion is that the ones that did better over this period (on the whole) are still believing the myth that increasing borrowing forever will ensure growth lasts forever.
We've taken our medicine early and are now growing faster than most of them. They will rue the day the day that they didn't take their medicine and will end up a lot sicker than us in the not too distant future.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Peter Schiff returns.

Disaster hasn't arrived yet. But it's coming...just wait.

Didn't we have this discussion about 12 months back Mick?

PS: I thought you weren't replying to posts addressed to "Mick"?

PPS: What about that American deficit?

[Filo]

Another Mickism, "taking the medicine"

[IC1967]

I never said I wouldn't reply. Just said I wouldn't refer to you know who anymore. You can all call me what you like. I don't mind.

[IC1967]

What about that American deficit?

I would have thought a man of your obvious intelligence could have found this information for himself. It's not hard. You just type into Google (or any other search engine) 'American deficit' and there you will find the answer. Anyway to save you the bother I've done it for you. Its $98.9 billion!!!

On another point about taking medicine, America has now closed down part of the government due to debt problems and will also default on it's debt this month if the debt ceiling isn't raised. These are symptoms of their debt problems and are warnings of what is to come because they haven't taken their medicine.

I've been checking out that Mr Schiff you mentioned and was amazed to find the following link. He described the current situation word for word as if it was me being interviewed:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/u-broke-t-afford-raise-debt-ceiling-says-114000942.html

[Glyn_Wigley]

America has now closed down part of the government due to debt problems

Rubbish. It's been closed down because the Republicans want to smother Obamacare on ideological grounds. Nothing to do with the state of the economy.

[IC1967]

Rubbish. It's been closed down because the Republicans want to smother Obamacare on ideological grounds. Nothing to do with the state of the economy.

Obamacare is part of the problem. It is unaffordable in the opinion of the Republicans (and in my opinion), so is directly related to the country's debt problems. In a perfect world I'd be all in favour of Obamacare but unfortunately they just can't afford it.

[River Don]

Looks like it might be working. What does Ed balls know:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24444134

Osbourne gave up on plan A months ago. I don't think he ever gave austerity a go properly anyway, we're still running a large defecit.

The economy has only started picking up after he embraced Plan B and started pumping up the housing market with his Help to Buy votes.