bridge too far

That we find sick people: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7747711.stm I thought we were civilised :smt102

I don't claim for travelling TO work but I do claim for travelling TO OTHER PLACES IN CONNECTION WITH MY WORK. An MP's place of work is his/her constituency. S/he can claim for travel to the HoC. Or would you rather only the very wealthy were MPs so they can pay out of their own pockets? Or better still, not draw a salary at all? Dolt.

One of the things I have to do in my job is to look at 'Gershon savings'. This is where each local council has to achieve targetted savings compared to its 2004-05 budget. This financial year every local council will have to spend 10% less on non-pay items than it did in 2004-05. Here's an example from a District council (I googled it - not a piece of work I did ) http://www.cheltenham.gov.uk/libraries/documents/the%20council/finance/budget08_09/table_2_gershon_savings.pdf These savings are achieved by 'collaborative procurement' whereby local councils join forces to benefit from economies of scale for such things as energy, transport, me etc. and by developing frameworks, again to drive down prices. If they don't achieve these savings, their annual audit opinion is 'qualified' and they lose out on grants. Most councils achieve and many exceed their targets. So don't believe all you read in the papers

Given that current rates are about 43p per mile, it doesn't take a genius to realise that only very local (to Westminster) MPs would have such a small claim (280 miles a month). Most claims would be far in excess of £140 pcm and would, therefore, have to have receipts attached. The administrative costs of processing such a small claim probably far outweigh the benefit of catching out a cheat IMO. (Takes auditor hat off)....

Maybe the Grand Plan is to just have a renowned Academy (tie in with GH) and simply develop youngsters and flog 'em at a profit. Sod the football club, just make SLH PLC a shining example of youth development and rake in the cash. Mebbee

A bit economical with the truth, if you'll forgive the sort-of pun. The duty on tobacco and alcohol is only going to be increased by the amount lost due to the reduction in VAT. So tobacco and alcohol is not going to cost more IN REAL TERMS, even in the supermarket (although I'm with you big time on supermarket alcohol BTW).

Bungle, I know what you're saying but, if I can repeat the point, VAT is a regressive tax (lord knows, your lot have been saying that for years). It is applied to many basics, not just luxuries. Over the course of a year, all those 2.5ps will add up (assuming the retailers pass the cut on). So, whilst we might sneer at 2.5p, it could be quite significant to some families.

If they are successful their dividends will reward them handsomely. That isn't necessarily the same thing, surely?

But surely it's two and a half pence per pound less that you'll have to pay to the IR and that could well be a substantial amount. And you'll have longer to pay it, too. That's got to help a bit.

This is how I see it too.

I don't quite agree with some of the comments being made about the VAT reduction. VAT is a regressive tax. The poorer you are, the more you spend PROPORTIONALLY (as part of your wages) on VAT. http://www.bized.co.uk/virtual/economy/policy/tools/vat/vatth2.htm Time will tell if this has all been wise but if the Chancellor had done nothing I think there would a very real risk that eventually the UK would have to borrow even more money. If the economy isn't stimulated then more businesses will close (and therefore pay less business taxes and VAT), more people will lose their jobs (and therefore pay less tax, NI and VAT on purchases) and more benefits will have to be paid out. So tax revenues will reduce and benefits will increase. I bet that would add up to a lot more than the proposed measures. As a partner in a small business, I can see that our cashflow will benefit in a number of ways and cashflow is what is hitting small businesses more than anything ATM. Also, a number of ways of lending money to SMEs is proposed to circumvent the stubborness of the big banks in their refusal to extend overdrafts and keep rates at last year's levels. Mr Osborne proposes a number of measures. Freezing Council Tax, for example. So how are local councils supposed to provide services? Would they have to borrow from central government to plug the gap? Surely that would add to the 'borrowing' by government? And it wouldn't come into effect until April next year at the earliest. I think the Tories have lost the plot on this one and are painting themselves into a corner. Virtually every economy, not just in the western world, is proposing the same sort of measures as Darling introduced yesterday. I guess they're all wrong and George Osborne is the only one who's right :smt102 I don't think sitting back and letting the recession ride out is the right move and, as I say above, this could actually increase the levels of borrowing. Action needed to be taken now. Whilst I'm nowhere near the 45% tax bracket, I don't believe it will hit the 1% of the population in this bracket that hard. They all employ accountants to find legal loopholes and the very rich pay, as a proportion of their income, comparitively little in the way of taxes.

I'm very proud to British and will happily fly the flag of St George if we play in the World Cup. I do, however, find some of the people who inhabit my lovely country an embarrassment. No doubt they find me embarrassing too. Diversity, in all forms, is what makes our country great and this has been the case since the middle ages when we were populated by people from Germany, Scandinavia and France. And later, when we offered refuge to Hugenots, Jews, Poles, and enjoyed the benefits of the labour and culture of people from the West Indies and the Indian sub-continent.

I suggest you re-read my post and reconsider your reply. The bullet-headed (i.e. not very intelligent) xenophobics (look it up in the dictionary) are the ones who have no tolerance of other races. Not people like Robsk and ESB. I don't find bullet-headed xenophobic racists attractive at all. As an aside, I have just spent an enjoyable afternoon working with a kind, courteous (oh and Asian) man who makes my job so much more pleasant.

The bit in red bothers me.

Whereas I could never, ever consider Robsk and ESB to be spineless - far from it. They're kind, intelligent men and there are many women (me included) who find men like that far more attractive than bullet-headed xenophobics who have no tolerance for people of different races.

I have just brightened Mr TF's day by sending this link to him at work

There's been a lot about in the press recently: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/22/spain http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL0466621420080704

Woo hoo - Hull have equalized

Yeah, wound me up too

I would very seriously question the use of that word to describe our current government.

Roswell, I think the system in the US is different and this means that Senators don't necessarily toe the party line in the same way as our politicians do here. I think there have been real leaders in the past but it's only now that their talents are recognised. I'd put Tony Benn in this category. To my mind, he's one of the most intelligent and charismatic people I've ever had the good fortune to meet. I think there is a ray of hope in the Labour Party - Jon Cruddas - he says it as it is but I doubt he'll rise to the top, unfortunately. I really hope Obama succeeds but I, too, fear the backlash if he doesn't. He's got a really tough job on his hands especially as big business calls the shots even more than it does here.

What a shame football doesn't incorporate the hockey system whereby you can bring on a 'specialist' (for free kicks / penalties). He could be on the bench just for this. That would boost the attendances.

I used to call men's bits 'Martin' when I was a little girl. My kids always called lady bits 'mig' - they used to find it quite funny when the Russians talked about their Mig fighters.

Are you double-jointed then?

The difference is that we were granted city status by the Queen. We didn't become one just because of having a cathedral. MODERN city status is EARNED - not an accident of having a couple of old buildings.