|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Feb 8, 2024 15:10:02 GMT
If the leaks are correct it is looking like the £28bn is going to become £13bn (the £8bn that is in existing government plans plus £5bn new) and home insulation will be sacrificed. The latter is a bad decision IMO. A gentle reminder, that the original costing figure announced by Labour was £13bn. The £28bn figure is one that was announced by the current Government as "what it would really cost". Labour have not backtracked on their plans, they still want to do what they said they would do, and they still think it would be costed at £13bn. The Conservatives are just being allowed by a certain large broadcaster to re-write costs so they can claim Labour are backtracking. This is of course, not entirely impartial reporting. But the chances of any complaint being sustained against this large broadcaster with it's current management are slim to none. Makes you think that Labour need to beef up their Instant Rebuttal Unit as we get ever nearer the general election. Leaving aside our mainly craven media and their tendency to often misrepresent Labour policy, I do tend to agree with pjw1961 that Labour have been inept in the way that they have allowed defeat to be grabbed from the jaws of victory in relation to what is, in essence, a vote winning policy proving popular with the public. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,620
|
Post by pjw1961 on Feb 8, 2024 15:14:55 GMT
If the leaks are correct it is looking like the £28bn is going to become £13bn (the £8bn that is in existing government plans plus £5bn new) and home insulation will be sacrificed. The latter is a bad decision IMO. A gentle reminder, that the original costing figure announced by Labour was £13bn. The £28bn figure is one that was announced by the current Government as "what it would really cost". Labour have not backtracked on their plans, they still want to do what they said they would do, and they still think it would be costed at £13bn. The Conservatives are just being allowed by a certain large broadcaster to re-write costs so they can claim Labour are backtracking. This is of course, not entirely impartial reporting. But the chances of any complaint being sustained against this large broadcaster with it's current management are slim to none. I'm afraid you are incorrect. The £28bn is a Labour figure. You can find it in lots of places, but I've linked to just one. See page 3. "We will invest in Britain’s future, reaching a total of £28 billion a year in the second half of the parliament at the latest." labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Mission-Climate.pdf |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,620
|
Post by pjw1961 on Feb 8, 2024 15:27:40 GMT
|
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on Feb 8, 2024 15:30:31 GMT
Aston Villa's decision to 'concentrate on the league'. But do you mean the Premier League, or the Europa Conference League (Villa's last chance at silverware this season)? I hope Batty means the ECL as that is a hell of a lot of fun, especially when your team trounces all that Europe can throw at it and wins the whole bloody kaboodle to become CHAMPIONS OF EUROPE!!!!!!!  (that might not be enough exclamations marks) Still, we are above such things as the ECL now and are as we speak planning 'European conquest v2, or v3 if you include 1965). being West Ham - what could possibly go wrong?  |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Feb 8, 2024 15:43:05 GMT
Well if 'Royal Expert' Tom Bower is right, we can expect to lose another monarch soon - Isn't Bower the daft old right-wing bozo who peddles hatchet job biographies of politicians he doesn't like (Brown, Blair, Corbyn etc) and fawning hagiographies of those public figures he does like. A regular contributor to the Daily Mail and go-to "expert" on right wing TV channels like GB News. Two a penny rent-a-quote "respected" figure that can be found all over the right wing mediascape. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Feb 8, 2024 16:52:58 GMT
It seems Sunak doesn't have a spade with which to keep on digging so has opted for a JCB instead. Does he not have any advisers? Batty and me have been sending him advice. Slightly surprised that he’s been taking it though.  Well, only partially thus far, Crofto my marauding minstrel. I haven't seen him do his fully naked press conference yet. I suggested this to him as a way of rebutting all this negative "little man" talk. Maybe it's in the pipeline. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2024 16:57:38 GMT
Batty and me have been sending him advice. Slightly surprised that he’s been taking it though. Well, only partially thus far, Crofto my marauding minstrel. I haven't seen him do his fully naked press conference yet. I suggested this to him as a way of rebutting all this negative "little man" talk. Maybe it's in the pipeline. Best place for it Batty. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Feb 8, 2024 17:28:17 GMT
One for crossbat11, I feel, as his beloved Villa need to take note - d-nb.info/1239433050/34"This paper estimates the workplace productivity effects of COVID-19 by studying performance of soccer players after an infection. We construct a dataset that encompasses all traceable infections in the elite leagues of Germany and Italy. Relying on a staggered difference-in-differences design, we identify negative short- and longer-run performance effects. Relative to their pre-infection outcomes, infected players’ performance temporarily drops by more than 6%. Over half a year later, it is still around 5% lower. The negative effects appear to have notable spillovers on team performance." Real world performance impacts from covid infection. Surely not? But it's not just football - "We argue that our results could have important implications for labor markets and public health in general. Countries and firms with more infections might face economic disadvantages that exceed the temporary pandemic shock due to potentially long-lasting reductions in productivity." This is the message that those who understand what covid is doing are desperately trying to get the public and policymakers to pay attention to. It's a long, slow and deep burning issue. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,620
|
Post by pjw1961 on Feb 8, 2024 17:30:15 GMT
Well, only partially thus far, Crofto my marauding minstrel. I haven't seen him do his fully naked press conference yet. I suggested this to him as a way of rebutting all this negative "little man" talk. Maybe it's in the pipeline. Best place for it Batty. I see Sunak followed your joint plan for today though. He popped down to Cornwall in his favorite helicopter and: (a) declined to apologise to a grieving father (b) explained the government's commitment to NHS dentistry by visiting a dental practice that doesn't accept adult NHS patients (c) visited an preschool that is under threat of closure due to lack of government funding, an issue that he entirely ignored. The man has a kind of reverse Midas touch. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Feb 8, 2024 17:34:58 GMT
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,620
|
Post by pjw1961 on Feb 8, 2024 17:38:22 GMT
Labour's Green Investment Plan (latest version):
Setting up Great British Energy, costing £8.3bn
Labour says:
We will create a new publicly owned company – Great British Energy - to invest in homegrown clean energy across the country and give us real energy independence from foreign dictators.
GB Energy will be headquartered in Scotland. It will accelerate new nuclear and position Britain as a leader in technologies such as floating offshore wind and tidal. It will also partner with the private sector to accelerate the rollout of more mature renewable energy generation technologies such as wind and solar. We already have public ownership of energy in Britain, just by foreign governments such as the French and Chinese, rather than our own. Great British Energy will aim to emulate the success of domestic energy champions in other European countries. A Labour Government will capitalise Great British Energy with an initial £8.3bn (inclusive of the £3.3bn Local Power Plan) – over the first parliament, investing in partnership with the private sector.
Having a local power plan, using £3.3bn of the 38.3bn for GB Energy
Labour says:
Whilst the Conservatives block cheap homegrown renewables with an onshore wind ban that is costing families £180 on their bills every year, Labour will back the builders and not the blockers, so that communities in all four nations of the UK can put up wind turbines, solar panels, and other forms of low carbon power to cut bills. To drive the energy transition and crowd in investment, as part of its initial capitalisation, Great British Energy, Labour’s publicly owned energy company, will partner with energy companies, local authorities and cooperatives to develop 8GWs of clean power by 2030 - double the power of the world’s largest windfarm. That is why Labour is allocating resources to support local power in partnership with communities. Of Great British Energy’s capitalisation, £3.3bn will be available in grants for local authorities and loans to communities to create one million owners of local power.
Setting up a national wealth fund, valued at £7.3bn
Labour says:
Labour will set up a National Wealth Fund, which will create good well paying jobs in a zero-carbon economy by investing in industries where one pound of public investment can crowd-in a further three pounds of private sector investment. This plan will help to re-industrialise the UK with hundreds of thousands of good jobs for plumbers, electricians, engineers, and technicians across the country.
A Labour Government will invest £7.3bn in our National Wealth Fund, with investment deployed in every region and nation of the UK, including:
• Steel: investing £2.5bn in a bright future for our steel industry, benefiting communities in Cardiff, Rotherham, Sheffield, Port Talbot and Scunthorpe. This reflects our original £3bn commitment, of which £500m is now in the government’s spending plans. Due to the perilous state of the steel industry, we are accelerating this scheme from over ten years to five.
• Ports: upgrading our ports so they are renewable-ready, with an investment of £1.8bn, which would inject investment into nine clusters, including; Forth and Tay, Humber, East Anglia, Solent, North West and North Wales, Belfast Harbour, North East Scotland, North East England and the Celtic Sea.
• Gigafactories: breaking the ground for new electric vehicle and battery factories, with £1.5bn investment in our automotive heartlands in the West Midlands, the North East, and the South West. This is in addition to the £500m already committed by the UK Government.
• Industrial hubs: decarbonising carbon-intensive heavy industrial hubs in every corner of the country, with an investment of £1bn, benefiting Scotland, South Wales, the Humber, Teesside and Merseyside.
• Hydrogen: channelling up to £500m into green hydrogen manufacturing, which could benefit the North West, Sheffield and the South East.
Taken together, these policies will support the creation of over 200,000 direct jobs and up to 260,000-300,000 indirect jobs over the decade. This will directly address geographical inequalities, with 50,000 new jobs each in both the North West and Yorkshire, as well as 30,000 new jobs each in the North East, the East Midlands, the West Midlands, and the East of England. The National Wealth Fund will use a range of tools of support, including equity stakes in return for those investments.
British jobs bonus, costed at £500m a year
We will boost investment and jobs in Britain’s industrial heartlands and coastal communities, by rewarding clean energy developers with a British Jobs Bonus if they invest in good jobs and supply chains in those areas. Labour will allocate a fund of up to £500m per year, starting from the 2026-27 contract for difference auction round, to provide capital grants to incentivise companies developing clean technologies like offshore wind, onshore wind, solar, hydrogen, and carbon capture and storage, to target their investment particularly at the regions that most need it.
Warm homes plan, with £6.6bn on top of the £6.6bn already being spent by the Tories
The national emergency of rising energy bills has again highlighted the urgent importance of insulating as many homes as possible. The UK spends more money on energy wasted through the walls and roofs of our houses than any other country in Western Europe. Labour’s Warm Homes Plan would start a national programme that will upgrade up to five million of the UK’s 16 million homes below an EPC rating of C over the parliament. Our aim will remain to ensure that every home below EPC C that can be practically upgraded, is done by 2035 - this is aligned with the government’s target, but offers a credible plan. This programme will go street by street, installing energy saving measures such as loft insulation and low-carbon heating, saving families on low-incomes hundreds of pounds per year, slashing fuel poverty, and getting Britain back on track to meeting our climate targets.
Our investment will be split between: energy efficiency grants, delivered hand-in-glove with local authorities to target the areas and families in most need; government-backed zero-interest loans for green home upgrades like solar panels; and grants to make sure heat pumps are affordable for people who want them. We will work with commercial banks to ensure they offer mortgage products that support retrofit. This is a slower initial roll out than we had hoped to deliver when we originally planned this policy, due to the fiscal situation. On the Tories’ watch, insulation rates have crashed 90% - one of the reasons the UK had one of the most acute energy price crises in Western Europe.
Proper windfall tax on oil and gas companies
Labour will introduce a proper windfall tax on the excess profits of oil and gas companies, so we can invest in the clean power we need to cut bills for families. Labour will fix the holes in the Energy Profits Levy by:
• Increasing the rate to 78%, the same rate of tax as in Norway.
• Ending the loopholes in the levy that funnel billions back to oil and gas giants.
• Extend the sunset clause in the windfall tax until the end of the next parliament, provided there continue to be windfall profits.
Together, these changes would raise £10.8bn over the next five years from 2024-25 to help fund the Green Prosperity Plan. This amount is based on current OBR forecasts. The amount raised will depend on outturn oil and gas prices and production levels, as well as the level of investment and the amount offset against taxation.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Feb 8, 2024 17:41:48 GMT
I see Sunak followed your joint plan for today though. He popped down to Cornwall in his favorite helicopter and: (a) declined to apologise to a grieving father (b) explained the government's commitment to NHS dentistry by visiting a dental practice that doesn't accept adult NHS patients (c) visited an preschool that is under threat of closure due to lack of government funding, an issue that he entirely ignored. The man has a kind of reverse Midas touch. It makes you wonder if there's a Labour mole in Tory HQ setting this stuff up. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,620
|
Post by pjw1961 on Feb 8, 2024 17:45:21 GMT
So it does look like the "warm homes" policy has taken the biggest hit, along with slowing some other aspects down to spread the cost.
That list is an antidote to the charge Labour has no policies. You can of course debate whether they are the right ones or go far enough, but it definitely has some.
|
|
patrickbrian
Member
These things seem small and undistinguishable, like far off mountains turned into clouds
Posts: 317
|
Post by patrickbrian on Feb 8, 2024 18:03:22 GMT
I have changed my mind about Rishi Sunak. I wouldn't vote Con anyway, but i thought he was (probably) okay as a person, if inept. Now i think he's (probably) deficient in basic human decency. And I'm wondering if his trans joke and refusal to apologise is going to stick to him in the way certain events do with politicians - May's 'hostile environment' and Miliband's Edstone come to mind. I hope so.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Feb 8, 2024 18:15:11 GMT
So it does look like the "warm homes" policy has taken the biggest hit, along with slowing some other aspects down to spread the cost. That list is an antidote to the charge Labour has no policies. You can of course debate whether they are the right ones or go far enough, but it definitely has some. I was going to copy your entire previous long post and put the following cryptic comment below it. "Sorry, I'm not buying it." Followed by a Stats for Lefties produced AI fake video of Starmer hosing raw sewage into a precious chalk stream wildlife rich habitat in West Hampshire. But you know me, I'm not one for controversy, so I desisted. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Feb 8, 2024 18:21:55 GMT
I have changed my mind about Rishi Sunak. I wouldn't vote Con anyway, but i thought he was (probably) okay as a person, if inept. Now i think he's (probably) deficient in basic human decency. And I'm wondering if his trans joke and refusal to apologise is going to stick to him in the way certain events do with politicians - May's 'hostile environment' and Miliband's Edstone come to mind. I hope so. He's lacking in emotional intelligence, along with Liz Truss, Matt Hancock, Jacob Rees Mogg and the rest. They have no understanding of how to respond to anyone who expresses concern, disgust, upset, trauma, grief etc. These people think the the trans issue is a subject for jokey jibe, or people who did as they were told and stayed in Grenfell Tower lacked common sense, or that people so desperate that they will pay traffickers for a perilous sea journey are simply shysters looking for an easy life.... the list goes on. I would say this mindset typifies Conservative voters but of course it doesn't. You only have to read the comments on Conservative Home to see how disgusted and depressed many traditional Tory voters are at this shower that is in charge. It is, however, typical of the kind of Tory that has risen to the top in this and the last two governments. An ability to think in simple black and white terms, to hate at will, to ignore suffering and distress a to make jokes about people's misfotunes and distressing situations seems to be the right qualifications for success in the Tory Party leadership since Brexit. They need to be wiped out in the next election and then spend the time to the next election moving ever more to the right and fighting amongst themselves and then to lose that one heaviliy too. Then the light might dawn and some decent people might take control of the party and drag it back into the world the rest of us inhabit. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,571
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Feb 8, 2024 18:26:59 GMT
Danny - "So deaths from other causes dropped during covid?" Got it in one. There were a large number of deaths prevented, primarily through the reduction in other infections, but also in a reduction in suicides (in many countries) and a reduction in accidents. Several studies have since shown that these were deaths prevented, rather than delayed (all deaths prevented are only delayed of course, but in the sense that there was no 'catch up' afterwards'). The point of using excess deaths figures instead of recorded deaths is precisely because people dying from some new cause might in fact be people who would have died anyway. To make an extreme example, suppose that in 2020 instead of the typical 500,000 annual deaths, there had been only 400,000, but all had died from covid. Would that be a horrible awful new disease, or a great saviour? |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Feb 8, 2024 18:34:23 GMT
Danny - "The point of using excess deaths figures instead of recorded deaths is prcisely because people dying from some new cause might in fact be people who would have died anyway." No it isn't. That's a stupid thing to say. Excess deaths are used to measure, er...excess deaths. Cause of deaths are what we use to measure causes of deaths. You're falling through the ice here.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,571
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Feb 8, 2024 18:37:14 GMT
And once again, Sweden had all the circumstances in it's favour. Their population and social systems put them at a huge advantage, but they blew it. Other Nordic countries, that didn't have quite so many structural advantages, did much better. The fact of the matter is there is no evidence applying a lockdown after covid had become established in a country ever did any good. Japan never had a lockdown because it never had an outbreak big enough to justify using one. How? And how come whatever it was doing worked for a couple of years, but now isnt working so well? China had what was deemed the toughest lockdown in the world, though you pointed out it did where there were outbreaks but never needed to apply this at all in other places! Every result is consistent with the idea lockdown never had much effect in the long run, but what did was how much immunity your country already had at the outset. All the evidence is that we would have done better seeking to isolate the old but encourage the young to catch it to get it over. The traditional response, really. If we had done this, there would be no world recession now. No further huge escalation of world government debt. Likely no energy crisis, because part of the cause of that was closing down the energy industry for two years in a big slump of demand. No inflation surge now. Some much poorer pharmaceutical companies. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,571
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Feb 8, 2024 18:43:09 GMT
. Cabinets at the side of roads are wide open to malicious damage (and I've seen several around my way with their doors open) as well as to accidental damage e.g. being run into by vehicles. Yes, but they are what we are using now already. Line comes from the exchange to near your house and then there is a connection to the short cable to your home. As I still havnt seen a proper technical description of the system (wikipedia is rubbish!), I cant be sure how they are doing it, but it looks likely the core fibre cable will still split off at roadside so there has to be the equipment to do this, still at roadside. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,571
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Feb 8, 2024 18:53:12 GMT
" Relative to their pre-infection outcomes, infected players’ performance temporarily drops by more than 6%. Over half a year later, it is still around 5% lower. The negative effects appear to have notable spillovers on team performance." Real world performance impacts from covid infection. Surely not? . So what is the corresponding effect of flu? Anyone done that study? Duh, of course you feel bad being ill and it has a knock on effect. But so what? Yes, this might have an implication for the overall economy, but so does any other illness. Incidentally, i heard an interesting study yesterday which said footballer performance is very strongly correlated with their pay. Which is why the richest clubs always win tournaments. The study also couldnt find any evidence that whoever was training/managing the club made much difference except for a very few star performers. I doubt covid made much difference to the work outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Feb 8, 2024 18:57:02 GMT
Danny - "If we had done this, there would be no world recession now." a) There isn't a world recession now b) The data is very clear; those countries which didn't tackle transmission had the worst economic outcomes, those that took the measures to prevent high case numbers had the strongest economies. Lockdowns were necessary, but a sign of failure. We should never have got to the point when they were essential, but without them the economic damage would have been even worse than it was.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Feb 8, 2024 19:02:39 GMT
Can't you guys take a break?
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Feb 8, 2024 19:39:51 GMT
mercian - "Can't you guys take a break?" Happy to. Just takes Danny to stop talking nonsense, or take it to the covid thread, and we're there.
I would add that I get a bit annoyed that I get constantly lumped in with Danny. I post accurate, factual information, based predominantly on real science, with referenced papers. He makes stuff up, rambling imaginings, nonsense on stilts, repeatedly disproven. We're not cut from the same cloth.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Feb 8, 2024 19:50:36 GMT
mercian - "Can't you guys take a break?" Happy to. Just takes Danny to stop talking nonsense, or take it to the covid thread, and we're there.
I would add that I get a bit annoyed that I get constantly lumped in with Danny. I post accurate, factual information, based predominantly on real science, with referenced papers. He makes stuff up, rambling imaginings, nonsense on stilts, repeatedly disproven. We're not cut from the same cloth.
You could just ignore him, alec. Danny may well have his admirers and readers on here, I think johntel and patrickbrian are two subscribers, but I suspect most swerve around the majority of his often lengthy posts. I have to say, as an admirer of a lot of what you write on general political matters, I really can't understand why you don't too. It's not as if you're ever going to remotely change his mind or get him to stop replying to you in ways that clearly infuriate you. It all seems utterly pointless to me and absorbs a lot of the site's bandwidth. |
|
patrickbrian
Member
These things seem small and undistinguishable, like far off mountains turned into clouds
Posts: 317
|
Post by patrickbrian on Feb 8, 2024 20:07:39 GMT
crossbat
Just for the record, I never read any of either Danny's or Alec's posts about Covid!
Outside of that, Alec's posts are intelligent and informative, and I find Danny has something to contribute as a controversialist.
I skip a lot. Don't we all? And I am sometimes struck with wonder at some posters willingness to write endless screeds that no-one will read.
|
|
|
|
Post by thylacine on Feb 8, 2024 20:09:41 GMT
My own take is that Alec and Danny are much more alike than they would care to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Feb 8, 2024 20:34:56 GMT
crossbat11 - as I said about Trevor, I believe it's important to constantly challenge misinformation and falsehood, wherever you see it. Swerving it is a form of acceptance, and it's precisely that 'ignore it and it will go away' mindset that let Trump, Brexit etc make ground. It's not Danny's mind that I'm trying to change. Rather, I'm concerned that normalizing the kind of nonsense he promotes will allow it to become accepted thinking by others. It's another kind of virus that needs to be constantly challenged. I appreciate that this isn't a widely supported view on here, on this topic at least, but we're seeing the real world effects of covid misinformation play out now with a wave of serious illness in children with measles. It's all part of the same thread. And no thylacine - I'm not remotely like Danny. I actually look for evidence to challenge what I think, and I'll go wherever that takes me.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Feb 8, 2024 20:46:22 GMT
Ok folks, here's an idea I've had: two of us take extreme positions on a political topic, and then gradually make concessions in turn and see how close we end up.
It might be better on a separate thread, but I'll start by saying that the state should run absolutely nothing at all. Some one else (just one) then starts from the position that private business of any sort should not be allowed, right the way down to the self-employed.
I then concede that the state should run the armed forces. We now need someone to make a concession from the other side. Sort of like a Dutch auction. Any takers?
|
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Feb 8, 2024 20:46:46 GMT
One for crossbat11 , I feel, as his beloved Villa need to take note - d-nb.info/1239433050/34"This paper estimates the workplace productivity effects of COVID-19 by studying performance of soccer players after an infection. We construct a dataset that encompasses all traceable infections in the elite leagues of Germany and Italy. Relying on a staggered difference-in-differences design, we identify negative short- and longer-run performance effects. Relative to their pre-infection outcomes, infected players’ performance temporarily drops by more than 6%. Over half a year later, it is still around 5% lower. The negative effects appear to have notable spillovers on team performance." Real world performance impacts from covid infection. Surely not? Thanks alec, that's a really interesting paper. However I must admit I'm sceptical. The scope and consistency of the claimed results just seem too good to be true given the relatively small sample size and the oblique nature of the data. The paper uses passes per player per game as it basic measure of performance, which across a team is surely more a measure of skill than fitness. Man City are (of course) top in passing, but I doubt it's because they are any fitter. Is number of passes per game a true indicator of physical and mental fitness? - I'm not sure. Surely a better approach would be to focus on fitness and talk to athletes e.g. runners about the effect of covid on their performance and analyse their actual times in races. And compare covid with other respiratory illnesses. |
|
(that might not be enough exclamations marks) Still, we are above such things as the ECL now and are as we speak planning 'European conquest v2, or v3 if you include 1965). being West Ham - what could possibly go wrong? 
