« Previous | Main | Next »


Eddie Mair | 13:31 UK time, Thursday, 11 January 2007

We have sent one today - in the last five minutes - and think it might get to you. Watch your inbox! (WARNING: NEWSLETTER CONTAINS THE WORD "BLOODY")


  1. At 01:35 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Perky wrote:

    I will be glued to my screen and constantly refreshing....although as a proper lady, I am obviously extremely fresh already.

  2. At 01:36 PM on 11 Jan 2007, gossipmistress wrote:

    Whey hey!!!

    I'm holding my breath.....................................................

  3. At 01:48 PM on 11 Jan 2007, jonnie wrote:

    Nothing as yet.

    Would it not be more of an idea to simply post it on the blog.

    We know that the Newsletter system is broken and tends to work on a 30 hour delay, or 3 Month delay in rare circumstances.

  4. At 01:53 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Roberto Carlos Alvarez-Galloso,CPUR wrote:

    Thanks for the warning.

  5. At 01:57 PM on 11 Jan 2007, LadyPen wrote:

    Got it!!!!!!!!!!!

  6. At 01:57 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Helen Sparkles wrote:

    I'm not holding my breath but I am watching paint dry, I wonder which will be faster (-:

  7. At 01:58 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Molly wrote:


    Surely this is simply to get attention-naughty boy!


  8. At 02:08 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Your warning was a little weak, Eddie. There's THREE Bl*&dys in the newsletter. The weak-hearted have been warned :-p

  9. At 02:11 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Huzzah! It's arrived:-) Reading the header, it looks like it took 21 minutes from start to finish. Congrats to all involved!!

  10. At 02:11 PM on 11 Jan 2007, gossipmistress wrote:

    ...still holding my breath, going a bit blueish.....

  11. At 02:17 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Sara wrote:

    Brilliant, Eddie - 1.26 pm and it has arrived. How exciting!

  12. At 02:18 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Sara wrote:

    Sorry - correction: it left you at 1.26 and got here at 2.26 pm.

    Only one hour. Faster than a pigeon!

  13. At 02:20 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    Lady Pen (5)

    Are you sure it's today's? If so, where are you?

  14. At 02:22 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Chrissie the Trekkie wrote:

    Woo Hoo!

    IT'S HERE!!! 13.26!


  15. At 02:26 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Anne P. wrote:

    Whizzing up the M1 it arrived at 14:19 i.e. in under an hour.

    Well done all - I do look forward to it in my in-box.

  16. At 02:27 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Perky wrote:

    Got it!!!

  17. At 02:30 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Bill'n'Ben wrote:


  18. At 02:31 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Jason Good wrote:

    And there I was convinced we had seen its demise. Huzzah! And a hearty yo ho ho.

    Of course, not being at home and not having figured how to make my email mobile yet, I shall have to wait to see if it has arrived yet. I have confidence, though.

  19. At 02:31 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Annasee wrote:

    Yep, mine made it, despite the weather! Just after 2 pm. Good work everyone.

  20. At 02:34 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Deepthought (John W) wrote:

    ...Sadily I'm still waiting....

    By the way, could the reason for few comments in the evening on any thread be because of bloggages. Seems to be happening every evening at the moment. - See all the "where is everyone" comments on the beach etc.

  21. At 02:34 PM on 11 Jan 2007, LittleGen wrote:

    It's arrived. Now I can get on with the rest of my work.

  22. At 02:34 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    Aha! It's reached leafy Gloucestershire (approx. 14:28, and I'm pretty confident it has to go via Texas).

    I would like to say something drastic about interest rates, too, but the English language does not contain adequate vocabulary.
    The very large amount of bumph sent to me by HM Treasury included the suggestion that today's rate change affects inflation 2 years hence. I, by contrast, believe that recent rate hikes have already pushed up inflation, so stand by for another inflation rate rise. A BBC man said on WATO that this is a warning to employers against [high] pay rises; does not recent inflation caused by non-wage factors fuel pay rises? Nobody wants to fall behind.

  23. At 02:36 PM on 11 Jan 2007, tomi wrote:

    "Bloody" newsletter received successfully.

  24. At 02:38 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Confused wrote:

    I got one - I got one - I got one - I got.....

    oops. I'm at work. Shhhhhhhh!

    (Whispered) Thanks Eddie

  25. At 02:43 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Mrs Trellis wrote:

    Oh happy day.

  26. At 02:44 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    Anyone heard from Gossipmistress? I'm getting worried.

  27. At 02:45 PM on 11 Jan 2007, gossipmistress wrote:


  28. At 02:45 PM on 11 Jan 2007, LadyPen wrote:

    Trala - I win, and claim my mystery prize. (NOT the Gordon Brown book, tho, please.)

    There are obviously no wrong leaves on the line between London and Norfolk, and the wind must have been blowing the right way.


  29. At 02:46 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Little Weed wrote:

    I'll have to wait till I get home to see if it's arrived!

  30. At 02:48 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Fiona wrote:

    Hurray!! popped into my inbox at 14.48 - not bad at all, well done all.

  31. At 02:50 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Mrs Calabash. wrote:

    Dear Radio Four,

    We had a bit of wind and rain last night and today was bin day. Did the binmen cometh? They surely did not ! Clearly last night's deluge, gales and a little drizzle and a few ten minute bouts of heavy rain today were too much for our trusty binmen.

    Who'd want to chance getting a bit wet during the 2 metre dash with the bin from pavement to bin lorry and back again? Clearly not our binmen. But................my bin already held rubbish that was 3 weeks, 2 weeks and 1 week old and which was happlily mouldering away producing nasty smells and with the lid off even more nasty mould spores were escaping.

    Not my problem, but when the binmen eventually cometh possibly some of the spores will leave the bin and find a new home in a binman's lungs as they huff and puff doing the 2 metre dash with my bin. Trust me lads, you're be better off getting a little damp than coughing your lungs up for a very long time on the mouldy output of my bin. I'll phone the rotten council again.

  32. At 02:50 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Fifi wrote:

    Sent at 13.25pm, arrived at 14.52pm.

    That's speedy!

    Maybe the bloodys lubricated its passing.

    Sorry, I'll get me coat.....

  33. At 02:55 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Otter wrote:

    Mine has arrived also.
    Good work - the wind was definitely in the newsletters sails today.

  34. At 02:58 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Helen Sparkles wrote:

    Hurrah, 14.35 in my inbox, & I am so happy!

  35. At 02:59 PM on 11 Jan 2007, KateH wrote:

    It arrived even before your blog posting!!!!!

    Express service

  36. At 03:07 PM on 11 Jan 2007, RJD wrote:

    Thank you Mr Newsletter - arrived 14.44

    LadyPen - was yours hand delivered? by couier? on a silver salver?

  37. At 03:08 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Not that's strange. I posted my 9 before my 8! Have I just discovered a hole in time?

  38. At 03:09 PM on 11 Jan 2007, jonnie wrote:


    I'm impressed ! and take back what I said earlier.

  39. At 03:21 PM on 11 Jan 2007, gossipmistress wrote:

    Phhhheeeeeewww! Oxygen please.................

    C..a..n..'t....t r...e...a..l..l..y....t...a...l...k...b...u..t.....i...t...'...s..a...r...r...i..v...e...d.............

    (t..h..a..n..k y..o..u..f...o..r t..h..e c..o..n..c..e..r..n.....V...H......I..'..l..l....b..e...O...K......i...n....a....m..i..n..u.t..e.......

  40. At 03:24 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Mark Intime wrote:

    Technology; where would we be without it (apart from sane)? I have been happily delivered of an infant email. Too much blood though.

  41. At 03:56 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Eddie Mair wrote:

    Fifi (32) - how you got "lubricated its passing" past the censors I have no idea...

  42. At 04:03 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Stewart M wrote:

    It works, it works!! Not so sure I wante dto Know about a rates Hike? By how much? I'm about to borrrow a shed load!

  43. At 04:03 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Deepthought (John W) wrote:

    ...sob, still no newsletter...nor is it on pmblog.co.uk....


  44. At 04:19 PM on 11 Jan 2007, LadyPen wrote:

    RJD (36) -
    I think you'll find that you have to sign up to the paid-for Premium Service (the existence of which has been a very well-kept secret up to now) to get the newsletter on a silver salver.

    Bl*st. Now EVERYbody'll want one!


  45. At 04:41 PM on 11 Jan 2007, john quinton-barber wrote:

    punch the air! it arrived on time (and within budget).

  46. At 04:44 PM on 11 Jan 2007, jonnie wrote:

    On PM Blog now ..

    Sorry I forgot, well not used to getting them :-(

  47. At 05:13 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Mine only took three hours.
    Thursday January 11, 2007 at 17:14:28 GMT

    And a malicious malicious posting warning!
    And another!

  48. At 05:27 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Deepthought (John W) wrote:

    ...STILL no newsletter, but I have got the BH one....

  49. At 06:02 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Frances O wrote:

    Bloody marvellous! I've got it (but PM's just ended, ho hum).

    So - Eric, you DID you a piece on Becks, after all...

  50. At 06:49 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Frances O wrote:

    Idea for slowing down/stopping inflation:

    Next time the interest rate decides to hike, *do not pull over and give it a lift*.

    Instead, swerve and hit it, necessitating a long stay in hospital.

  51. At 06:56 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Jason Good wrote:

    Nothing about Ben Thatcher's move from City to Charlton, though...

  52. At 07:53 PM on 11 Jan 2007, bridget finn wrote:

    Can I have a newsletter? How do you get past the *******"we have disabled this for your safety"I don't want safety. I want something interesting.

  53. At 09:28 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Deepthought (John W) wrote:

    ...Newsletter hit my inbox just after 21:30 this evening...

    BTW, why did Eddie refer to Mrs Beckham as "Posh"; surely it should be "Post Spice" (her stage name; unless things have changed, in which case I would stand corrected), or "Victoria", or indeed "Victoria Beckham". It did seem to stand out a bit.

  54. At 10:53 PM on 11 Jan 2007, Valery P wrote:

    For interest - if you're still listening, Mine came at 14.05 (but I was out).

  55. At 06:25 AM on 12 Jan 2007, Deepthought (John W) wrote:

    ...whoops, my 53, for "Post" read "Posh"; a typo...

  56. At 08:47 AM on 12 Jan 2007, John H. wrote:

    I've not managed to catch up sufficiently to comment for the last month or so, but I can add something to this one!! My newsletter arrived at 14.20 - which is surprisingly swift and yet surprisingly slow at the same time. (Think those occasions where you need a password reminder, or a "registration confirmation code" or whatever and the email in question arrives instantly so you can get on with the process. Wouldn't quite work if you had to wait 55 mins for the email to arrive.)

    Incidentally, "Happy New Year!" everyone.

    Actually, Vyle's comment about interest rates and inflation also caught my eye. I appreciate that it probably displays a complete lack of understanding of economic theory, but I also struggle with that. I can understand the notion of "spending power" - if you ain't got any, then that's likely to act to limit price increases because nobody's buying anything. And I can see how that it likely to limit the pay increases available to all working in the supply chain. But most of us have been crucified recently my the energy price increases - surely that helps to limit spending power itself? Pushing up interest rates seem to me also a reason to want higher pay to offset the "hit" you've just taken. Perhaps I'm being a bit too subtle - maybe the point is that increasing interest rates is like a swift punch to the stomach of the economy - there might be individual competing effects, but overall, the economy is winded slightly (well, "slightly" hopefully) and that dampens things for the proles.

    Out of the blue that's just reminded me of something I heard yesterday - talking about the mega-rich setting up shop in the UK (e.g. Russian oil billionaires) and the effect it has on the UK economy. As I walked out of the room, I'm sure I heard something like "1% of tax payers paying 20% of the tax..." - or something like that. Surely not? Anybody else hear it and can correct me?

  57. At 11:24 AM on 12 Jan 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Fellow amateur economists,

    It always seemed strange to me that a 'cure' for inflation was to dictate that money sitting on deposit doing nothing was mandated to grow numerically at a higher rate. Surely, high usury rates must be a driver for even higher inflation?

    If £100, left doing nothing, turns into £105 in a year, has it actually gained in true value, or has it simply become 'inflated'?

    Fr2iday January 12, 2007 at 11:26:19 GMT

  58. At 11:59 AM on 12 Jan 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    This morning, as I belatedly checked emails from yesterday, a stranger appeared on my screen.

    I took a further look and realised that it was Eddie's Prodigal Newsletter. I greeted it like the old friend that it is, sat it down, gave it copious amounts of brandy (looked like it need it), before getting out the frying pan and making it a full English with double helpings of bacon.

    The Newsletter is now looking fully refreshed, if a little tipsy. Its cheeks glowing, I've sent it back to Eddie for further titillation so that we can all see it in its full glory again later today.

    Thank you, Eddie, for encouraging it to return to us all in this way.

  59. At 12:42 PM on 12 Jan 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    John H: re the 1%/20% thing, that tallies with what I thought I'd heard. What alarms me about that fact is the humungous sums that the 1% must be 'earning' to arise at the 20% figure. Even given the top rate of tax!

    I use 'earning' in the loosest possible sense, of course.

    Mind you, hearing the news about Becks being 'paid' 1/2million a week in his new contract, perhaps it isn't so surprising?

  60. At 12:54 PM on 12 Jan 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    It's all OUR money, anyway, isn't it?

  61. At 01:16 PM on 12 Jan 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    59 ...... for 'arise' read 'arrive'. Doh! (or, perhaps, Dough?)

  62. At 03:52 PM on 12 Jan 2007, John H. wrote:

    Big Sis - missed that typo (or so I mean taipo?) completely - which just confirms my "communicative" view of language. But glad you heard it too - at least it allows me to move on from a "surely not" position to a more "now what does that mean?" position.

    I guess it means more things that there is room here to put. As you said, what amounts must that 1% be earning? In a world of a minimum wage of just over a fiver an hour (which I'm sure if often flouted), I suppose this is what they mean by the "gap" between rich and poor. On a pragmatic level, it must also mean that despite the ugliness of the situation, the (financial/economic) good of us all is enhanced by persuading these mega-rich to hang around. If the prevailing tax environment were less favourable, then most of them (apart from Elton John) might consider heading elsewhere - and that would be a tax hike for the rest of us.

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.