LondonLax

WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE SNOW LEOPARDS!?

I did use to like them but the last few seasons I have found them very grating. There is a real arrogance that comes from winning all the time.

Ah well. I would have liked to see a new name in the semis. Barcelona don't look invincible any more. I think they may well go out next round.

C'mon PSG! Hang on!

Spite?

Was about to post this. How many people celebrate Hitler's death and were not around in the 1940's? I think it's safe to say there's a slight difference. Absolutely agree. Comparing Thatcher to Hitler is utterly disgraceful especially in an attempt to justify a reaction. Surely if you actually believe in a priciple i.e. "It is disgraceful to celebrate someone's death" then you can't have exceptions to that i.e. "It's disgraceful to celebrate someones death unless it's someone's death I think is worthy of celebrating"?

Was about to post this. How many people celebrate Hitler's death and were not around in the 1940's? I think they would have struggled to celebrate his death if they were not around in the 40s.

You'd have liked John major then That should have said "not divisive" Stupid auto correct Thats an interesting concept for me. I would far rather todays politicians be like Thatcher than the current crop. Thatcher said what she believed in, what she was going to do, and then did it and don't forget people voted for her - she won 3 general elections (greatly aided by the fortuitous invasion of the Falklands - but again, she was clear with what she wanted and then achieved it.) The current crop regardless of colour are far more obsessed with style over substance, with presentation and perception as opposed to policy - and in most circumstances will say anything to get elected. How many "cast iron" political promises get broken today? and least with Thatcher for all her obvious faults actually did what she said she would do. You can be honest, forthright and have conviction without dividing people into battle lines though.

No doubt.

Reducing the power of the unions has played a big part in wages slipping back and income distribution becoming more unequal. Where decades ago it was common for the average family to have one wage-earner, now most families need two wage earners to have a roughly comparable position. (Leave aside advances in technology driving the cost of things down, I mean to remain in a roughly comparable position in relation to other people). That is a result of feminism not privatisation. Once women joined the work force then households with two incomes are always going to have more buying power than single earning households. This drives up the prices of houses as now mortgages are based on a duel income instead of a single income. You can put that genie back into the bottle and roll back to the 50s. Things like cars, furniture, TVs etc however have come down massively relative to income. As for pensions, Australia's superanuation system is a fantastic example of privatised pensions working much better than the old public system. Love the idea of a duel income. Is that where the couple fight over it? Women were in the workforce long before mortgages exploded. The question is why, when technological advances meant ever easier access to better and cheaper goods, it became necessary for households to work longer hours. It was supposed to be the opposite, wasn't it? Technology freeing us from long hours? The leisure society? The answer lies in the need to get people to spend more and more in order to continue to create further profits. So as well as extracting more hours of work, there was a massive expansion of debt. House prices in this country and some others, but by no means all, are one way of effecting a transfer of wealth from one group of people to another. As for Australian pensions, it sounds to me like the same old story - money being taken at excessive rates by fund managers for doing not very much at all. Something here which references and comments on a more detailed piece. Yeah, we can go back and forth all day about the different economic ideologies as many many people have before. I can respect your side of the debate even if I ultimately disagree. The thing I find frustrating though is when people try and paint one side (i.e. their side) as having the moral high ground.

You'd have liked John major then That should have said "not divisive" Stupid auto correct

We've no real idea of the counterfactual (i.e. what your bills would look like now if it were still the gas board and the MEB), though, so I don't think that argument is going to get us too far. Au contraire, Snowy, we do have an idea of the counterfactual. A counterfactual price analysis of British electricity privatisation When electricity was privatised, the assets were sold at a small fraction of their value. This allowed the generation (sorry) of excess profits. It also created a barrier to entry for new firms, who had not been gifted public assets in this way. Following excessive profiteering, we had the windfall tax (anyone remember that?). We also had even ten years ago, companies competing for new customers by lying, misselling, and using aggressive and intrusive methods. I see they are still being fined for carrying on these practices. The mythology of privatisation enthusiasts is always "efficiency". The reality is wasteful competition, attempts to prevent new entrants to the market, price-fixing, and a poorer deal for the consumer. Electricity in the UK is no different. The countries in western europe with the highest electricity prices are countries like Germany, Denmark and Sweden, not the UK. Doesn't that go against the idea that UK privatisation has been a disaster?

She was before my time but Thatcher doesn't sound like a politician I could have voted for. I prefer my politicians to be far more inclusive and liberal, not decisive and down right nasty. That doesn't mean I am going to denounce free market economics just because she was also a fan though.

Whilst the rhetoric of this statement might sound 'right on' there is absolutely nothing to support this notion. Your use of quotations marks around efficiency gains detracts from the reality that the nationalised industries were, in the main, remarkably inefficient, operating at a loss and propped up by premiums added to bills and the tax payer. The fact is in 1975 the UK consumer was paying more for their electricity and gas than any other Western European country, today it pays the least. Yep. Privatisation massively improves efficiency. Once an industry actually has to stand on its own two feet or risk going bust all the waste is quickly cut. I have worked in private companies and am now in a government organisation and the difference in culture is massive. There is no risk of being fired or made redundant in the public company even now during supposed government cuts. Employees continue to receive above inflation pay rises every year regardless. Meanwhile staff still leave the office at 4 in the afternoon and there are long group tea breaks during the day that you just couldn’t afford to take in my old company. There is even a guy who regularly has a nap at his desk after lunch! I think the best way to structure services is to have a range of private options running for profit and then a public company running not for profit and without subsidies. That way they both systems keep each other in check. The private companies can’t collude and screw people down and the public company is kept on its toes as well. I would love to know what Government body that is. I have worked for two large public sector institutions, Westminster City Council, and now the MPS. I can can assure you with both of those organisations (in recent times) there have been no above inflation pay rises and both organisations have made significant number of people redundant. I probably shouldn't say now I've been criticising the work culture over the internet

Reducing the power of the unions has played a big part in wages slipping back and income distribution becoming more unequal. Where decades ago it was common for the average family to have one wage-earner, now most families need two wage earners to have a roughly comparable position. (Leave aside advances in technology driving the cost of things down, I mean to remain in a roughly comparable position in relation to other people). That is a result of feminism not privatisation. Once women joined the work force then households with two incomes are always going to have more buying power than single earning households. This drives up the prices of houses as now mortgages are based on a duel income instead of a single income. You can put that genie back into the bottle and roll back to the 50s. Things like cars, furniture, TVs etc however have come down massively relative to income. As for pensions, Australia's superanuation system is a fantastic example of privatised pensions working much better than the old public system.

This question is quicker to answer you if you reverse it. It's a bit like pure maths. Which privatised industry has worked out better for the vast majority? Arguably telecoms. Which ones have worked out worse for the vast majority? The rest. Lots of deregulation and privatisation has been a massive boost for the economy and made jobs and services much more accessible for regular people. The privatisation of airlines has enabled regular people to travel by plane. It used to be the case that families had to go on holiday to Blackpool every summer. Now people travel all over Europe and further afield. Getting rid of closed shop of the city was also a required deregulation. No longer do you have to have a father with a peerage to work in insurance or finance. I have lots of friends in East London with working class backgrounds working in the city, male and female.

Whilst the rhetoric of this statement might sound 'right on' there is absolutely nothing to support this notion. Your use of quotations marks around efficiency gains detracts from the reality that the nationalised industries were, in the main, remarkably inefficient, operating at a loss and propped up by premiums added to bills and the tax payer. The fact is in 1975 the UK consumer was paying more for their electricity and gas than any other Western European country, today it pays the least. Yep. Privatisation massively improves efficiency. Once an industry actually has to stand on its own two feet or risk going bust all the waste is quickly cut. I have worked in private companies and am now in a government organisation and the difference in culture is massive. There is no risk of being fired or made redundant in the public company even now during supposed government cuts. Employees continue to receive above inflation pay rises every year regardless. Meanwhile staff still leave the office at 4 in the afternoon and there are long group tea breaks during the day that you just couldn’t afford to take in my old company. There is even a guy who regularly has a nap at his desk after lunch! I think the best way to structure services is to have a range of private options running for profit and then a public company running not for profit and without subsidies. That way they both systems keep each other in check. The private companies can’t collude and screw people down and the public company is kept on its toes as well.

I still can't understand a word Lambert says

Yeah maybe a lack of 'quality' was the wrong word to use but there doesn't seem to be the blockbusters around last Christmas/New Year that there was the year before. The kind of game that creates a buzz outside the regular gaming community. GTA5 is the next big one I'm waiting for.

As long as it's the same for both sides it shouldn't be a factor.

It is our crap defense that makes me nervous. If we had the ability to keep clean sheets we would be fairly sure of picking up more points in our remaining games. Whilst we know we will let in one or two goals a game then it is difficult to be sure that we will score enough to get points.

It’s always 38-40 points required an this season will be no different. The funny thing is that in Feb every year it looks like there is no chance the bottom teams will get enough points to get close to 40 but every season the bottom teams scrape together the results.

Because the players are nervous that the crowd will get on their backs if they mess up at home, so they end up not playing with the freedom that they get away from home. It's not unique to us although we seem fairly consistent with it. One encouraging thing is that we seem to be better at handling the poorer sides who come to VP to sit back. We used to struggle to break them down. Now granted we're still poor overall and have a great deal of room for improvement, but we garner almost as many points per game at home to the bottom sides as away to them. Our real problem is home to top half sides... So, next up, Fulham at home ... I think a big factor is that we set up as a counter attcking side, being good on the break, and we have done since O'Neil arrived. That works well away where teams push forward leaving gaps but at home where teams are more cautous and pick their moments to attack we struggle to break them down.

He will probably retire early.

Most people think they can, but can't Okay it's Business Insider, but there's a link to a scientific study in the article. Another article Some dude's experiment that can easily be recreated at home i remember a home education lesson or whatever its called when i was maybe 14-15, they made us taste normal milk, skimmed and semi skimmed, and then had us try to guess which one was which, there was maybe 2 out of 30 that got all three right. odd phenomenon, shows that sight can be just as important as taste when it comes to drink and food ! on another note, vanilla coke tastes like sheit Yeah, marketing has a lot to do with it as well.