Certainly agree that Blair had charisma. He was probably the first truly "presidential" type PM this country has had since Churchill. Massively disappointed when he was able to pass the baton to Brown uncontested.

Why? I think he was broadly a successful PM with one horrendous stain on his record as opposed to a PM who got everything wrong. Why do you think he was a disaster? If it's just the Iraq war then fair enough no need to elaborate, just wondering if it was more than that.

Yes indeed, that Iraq war is a horrendous stain. It's difficult to overstate the scale of his lying and manipulation of parliament & the public in order to take us into war alongside the US. I can't reconcile his actions with his professed religious beliefs, since they are responsible for hundreds of thousands of lives - and still counting.

However, in addition, the whole banking crisis was made easier by Blair & Brown's deregulation of city practises. Leaving the economy on the brink of collapse, and a note reading 'all the money's gone'. He also allowed Gordon Brown to carry out his own personal economic & welfare policies - Working Tax Credits was an absolute shambles for several years, with £billions in overpaid benefits written off, whilst there were £billions owed to legitimate claimants that may never have ended up being paid. Even now it's a complicated and cumbersome (& prob inefficient) method of redistributing wealth.

Finally, the Labour Party during Blair's premiership were also guilty of cynically opening the UK's doors to uncontrolled immigration - simply as a means to increase their own vote. Gerrymandering on a national scale. The price for that folly is going to be paid for the rest of our lives and beyond.

This is pretty much nonsense, the city deregulation was very much a Thatcher thing.  What happened is that Labour didn't reverse it that much.  The FSA etc had far more teeth than what went before.  The end result of all this deregulation is that we are very much a world leader in finance.  

The immigration has always been mainly from the EU.  It is now and was during Labour's years in power.  

Well I wouldn't expect a Labour supporter to agree, lol.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

Why? I think he was broadly a successful PM with one horrendous stain on his record as opposed to a PM who got everything wrong. Why do you think he was a disaster? If it's just the Iraq war then fair enough no need to elaborate, just wondering if it was more than that.
[/quote]

Yes indeed, that Iraq war is a horrendous stain. It's difficult to overstate the scale of his lying and manipulation of parliament & the public in order to take us into war alongside the US. I can't reconcile his actions with his professed religious beliefs, since they are responsible for hundreds of thousands of lives - and still counting.

However, in addition, the whole banking crisis was made easier by Blair & Brown's deregulation of city practises. Leaving the economy on the brink of collapse, and a note reading 'all the money's gone'. He also allowed Gordon Brown to carry out his own personal economic & welfare policies - Working Tax Credits was an absolute shambles for several years, with £billions in overpaid benefits written off, whilst there were £billions owed to legitimate claimants that may never have ended up being paid. Even now it's a complicated and cumbersome (& prob inefficient) method of redistributing wealth.

Finally, the Labour Party during Blair's premiership were also guilty of cynically opening the UK's doors to uncontrolled immigration - simply as a means to increase their own vote. Gerrymandering on a national scale. The price for that folly is going to be paid for the rest of our lives and beyond.

In BP's 3rd Quarter update, they made forward projections based on Brent oil priced at $60 p/b. At the recent OPEC meeting, the Saudis refused to cap production, and it's estimated that the price p/b will fall to around $20. It's widely accepted that the Saudis are trying to render the production of shale gas in the US cost-ineffective, as it's been the first real threat to them in the past 60 years. Oil producers all over the world are simply collateral damage in this game.

In addition, whilst BP may want us to believe that there's an end in sight on the costs of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, I think there's a fair bit more to come on this.

Personally, I'd leave commodities well enough alone atm, but esp oil. At least until there's a lot less volatility in the market. Unless you're interested in shorting.

Can't have The Shield as anywhere close to The Wire...

I enjoyed the first few seasons, but thought it was almost as far fetched as Lost, by the later seasons.

Yes, I agree that The Shield got a little too stretched from feasibility in the end. But it was a mould-breaker for cop dramas in so many different ways. I loved it, and still rate it as one of my alltime favs. Never got into The Wire, so I can't make comparisons...

Six Feet Under was another big favourite of mine at that time, with its unique plot-setting and fantastically drawn characterisations.

My father-in-law. My own father was a virtual stranger to me, so when I met my wife's parents I was really hopeful that I'd be able to have a 'father-son' type relationship with him. It's a long story, but suffice to say that things didn't work out that way.

We've known each other for a very very long time. He makes snide, disparaging comments, and then claims that it's just "his sense of humour" when challenged. It's not an uncommon trait, but since he's my FIL I can't simply cold-call him with a GTFO.

Finally, the SA judicial system has made the correct decision & Justice has prevailed. Only a shame that the Steenkamp (?) family have had to suffer through the trial, the initial verdict, and then the last 9 months or so before this review. I really hope that they can now find some degree of peace and get on with their lives.

Selina may well be the top posh totty of this series, but I think it was pretty obvious from the outset that she wasn't a contender. Strikes me as being a pretty cold, calculating type. And I think big Al is probs of the same view.

What happened here is you arrived late and missed all the info you need in this hand.

For me it's this; but I've seen bets of this size with small to medium pairs just as much as for Cowboys or dem Aces. Player dependent, ofc.

The reluctant fold from the good player is possibly coz you've flatted behind. The smartly dressed 40-year-old (player you don't know?) could easily have failed to note to potential strength of the initial raise & call, and be 3b'ing with a smaller pair or something like AK/J/T, as he certainly has a stack to make an overbet like this to steal the pot pre. So, there's a case for a ship OR a nit-fold.

I'd always thought Chris Eubank was a misunderstood eccentric...

I was wrong. He's an attention seeking narcissist. Hope he's out tonight.

i havent seen any of this years show but he is in to the 2nd favourite to win now

He won't be after tonight's show, I'm sure. He was in the final two. Next time!

I'd always thought Chris Eubank was a misunderstood eccentric...

I was wrong. He's an attention seeking narcissist. Hope he's out tonight.

What do people think of smaller companies ie market cap <£100m.  On one hand the liquidity is quite poor sometimes so you would have to stay in for the longer term to cover the spread, but on the other hand the big institutions probably haven't scrutinised them to the degree that they have larger companies (because they can never buy enough shares to justify the research) so there might be some value.  Or is that optimistic?

I wouldn't let the market cap on its own be a determining factor for investment purposes. As long as the share/s were part of a balanced portfolio then I think they're fine.

If I found a company that I was interested in investing in, I'd use the following checklist as a starting point:

1. Is it an area of business that I have an understanding of & does the sector fit with my view of the near-term economy
2. Are there big institutional investors in it, and have they been adding recently
3. How big are the director's holdings (ideally 10%+) and have they been buyers or sellers recently
4. How do the last 2-3 years' accounts look, and are the most recent trading statement/s positive
5. Most small caps are growth shares rather than yield, but if they pay div's, then that's a bonus
6. Spread & liquidity check - some are more actively traded than others, ofc

As someone else has already said, I look at shares as 'Buy & Hold' - until I can top-slice to recover my initial investment & keep the rest as a freeroll.

All IMHO

This seems to be a rather formal & polite board, so to my dear fellow Apprentice followers,

Charlene knows she dodged a bullet there. Sugar probs wanted to fire her too - in fact fire them all, but the producers told him there were no more candidates to parachute in, and there's 2 more weeks to go before the final.

Kindest regards
4KS

Fargo's been mentioned a couple of times, so I'm just adding my tuppence & recommendation to invest some time in catching up with it. It's produced by the Coen Brothers, who are responsible for some excellent, quirky films & tv over the years:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coen_brothers_filmography

More than a simple cops & crime gang-war story, the delight comes in the depiction of the weird & wonderful characters, whilst there's regular jolt's of brutality thrown in before it gets a little too whimsical. I miss Billy Bob Thornton from the first to series, but the positives far outweigh the negatives in the latest series.

http://www.lse.co.uk/

I have found this site quite good for it's high volume "chat room" (where the key skill is to be able to filter out the rampers & de-rampers), and the facility to monitor a real portfolio or simply a watchlist.

You seem to have a reasonably balanced group of shares so far, but without knowing the %s invested, it's not necessarily so. I like diversification, but I also incline towards the more techy stuff that you usually only find on AIM (financial health warning!) However, there's a couple of company's that I think are worth having a look at:

Gooch & Housego (GHH) - optical technology firm; originally mainly a family affair, but has divested into the hands of a decent management team.

XLMedia (XLM) - IPO was about 18 months ago, and the company still has a big cash pile & a very progressive dividend policy. Involved in generating traffic for gaming websites in addition to providing SEO services in return for fees or commission. Results & trading statements have been very good to date.

Obviously, the standard "Do your own research" (DYOR) applies. I am invested in both. I also hold Lloyds Bank, as I saw this as being more undervalued than the other clearing banks. Good luck!