Awol

Mockingbird Franklin, Wouldn't it be easier to link this thread to a Tom Pride RSS feed instead of reposting the entire contents of his blog here every day?

To pay for the system that Labour engineered during those 13 years. The laughable thing is Labour supporters bleating about Tory cuts without which the borrowing trajectory would have been even higher! and the laughable thing is the Tory party wanted more public spending while labour was in office . Oops Oops indeed. Wanting to pile more wood on Labour's fire is hardly a sensible policy. Any more than trying to re-inflate the housing bubble is now. Osborne is an utter chod, I've never said anything different. I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand that anti-Labour doesn't equal pro-Tory.

This is true..... but the next Government of the Country will be a Tory/UKIP coalition on much less favourable terms than those the Lib Dems agreed to. You think its bad now. Wait until 2015 with Deputy PM Farage mixing things up. Haha comedy gold UKIP will not win a single seat all they succeed in doing is ensuring either a Labour victory or a Lab / Lib coalition. Which is kinda ironic given that UKIP want a referendum in order to pull out of Europe and the Tories appear to be offering that as an election pledge. Makes you wonder what Farage's real motivation is... Well at this point I wouldn't confidently state that UKIP will win a Westminster seat in 2015, but it's a rash call to say they won't. IF they come out of the EU elections in 2014 as the biggest party it will give them momentum and as you and I have agreed, people are genuinely fed up with the lib lab con. Unless one is a dyed in the wool greenie then UKIP offer one of the only other real alternatives. Plus they now have massive donors behind them and polling has shown that they do not only take votes from the Tories, but also Labour (check out the north of England where the Tories are political kryptonite) and a large number statistically are people who are voting for the first time in years. I don't think they are going to form a government but it is undeniable that they are changing the political landscape.

To pay for the system that Labour engineered during those 13 years. The laughable thing is Labour supporters bleating about Tory cuts without which the borrowing trajectory would have been even higher!

Having enough 'pulled up' (to what level exactly is another question) by clutching to the coattails of the very few would appear, I grant you, to be the guiding economic and social principles of this (and to a lesser degree the last) government. I would say it is down to the individual to pull themselves up and not expect a free ride from any one. The government should simply provide a safety net for those who lose their grip and fall while trying, or who through no fault of their own are unable to climb in the first place. EDIT: I meant to add that where the government can be proactive is in shaping the conditions for innovation and business to flourish, enabling the private sector to create more jobs. They have all patently failed in that department over recent times.

Strange how people can read posts and see different things. I do not think AWOL was saying that. You're right I wasn't saying that, any more than I was supporting the Tories when agreeing with Boris that the super rich actually make a huge contribution to our national wealth and common infrastructure. It's not about praising, supporting or kow-towing to the very wealthy, just acknowledging a fact.

I don't think the Tories are trying to do that. I think they're basically focussed on trying to pull the very wealthy up even further, to protect an elite. I was expressing my opinion of what any government's approach should be, not what the Tories are up to. My comment on a previous page wasn't in support of Boris, simply pointing out the factual basis in his claim that the super rich pay nearly 1/3 of the entire tax take and what that actually means in terms of a contribution to society. Of course we could continue this charade that's it all the evil rich Tories screwing everyone else, or maybe open our eyes, look across the chamber and notice that, actually, the official opposition are not short of a bob or two themselves.. Ed Miliband's Bollinger bolsheviks Despite the class-war rhetoric, Labour’s elite is still intensely comfortable with being filthy rich — and it’s becoming ever more so Maybe then people might notice what a manufactured sham this whole "hooray for the rich! No, burn the rich!" argument actually is.

What trite shite, Jon - that's a political judgement rather than the etymological one that Mr Mooney explained to us on VT a few years ago. Trite shite it may be in your opinion, that doesn't change the fact it is mine. Insofar as it's the business of government at all, I'm more concerned with trying to pull more people up than pulling a few people down.

On your last point about it mattering to you whether someone earns their wealth (fine, apparently) or inherits it (terrible) I don't get why you feel it's your business? If I work hard, have a bit of luck and become a self made rich dude, why on earth should it then be unacceptable for me to leave that to my children in order to improve their lives and those of their children? I find your attitude in that respect to be perverse. It's human nature and entirely respectable to want to do your best for your family, whether during your lifetime or after it.

Suffice to say I completely and utterly disagree with that. So basically you are saying that people should doff their caps and bow down to the rich in society? Wow, you've even quoted the part of my post where I said doing that is nonsense! I was simply saying that he is right when mentioning how much tax the super rich pay towards our national income (and therefore the funding of public services for all) and therefore they are not quite the bogey men some people make them out to be. After all there is no guarantee that the wealth they hold would simply be distributed amongst the population if they didn't have it, it may not even be in the country. Right, everyone who is super rich is simply exploiting some poor bastard or has been handed a wedge because they went to Eton...

While the knighthoods and hearty humble thanks schtick is obviously none sense, he has a point about their huge relative contribution to the exchequer and therefore national well being. I've always felt the hatred of the super rich in this country is mainly on account of jealousy over the success of others - a particularly unpleasant character trait. In a free society people are entitled to get rich and good for them if they do imho.

Rik Mayall is a right throbber.

EMPLOYEE NOTICE Due to the current financial situation caused by the slowdown in the economy, the Government has decided to implement a scheme to put workers of 50 years of age and above on early, mandatory retirement, thus creating jobs and reducing unemployment. This scheme will be known as RAPE (Retire Aged People Early). Persons selected to be RAPED can apply to the Government to be considered for the SHAFT program (Special Help After Forced Termination). Persons who have been RAPED and SHAFTED will be reviewed under the SCREW program (System Covering Retired-Early Workers). A person may be RAPED once, SHAFTED twice and SCREWED as many times as the Government deems appropriate. Persons who have been RAPED could get AIDS (Additional Income for Dependents & Spouse) or HERPES (Half Earnings for Retired Personnel Early Severance). Obviously, persons who have AIDS or HERPES will not be SHAFTED or SCREWED any further by the Government. Persons who are not RAPED and are staying on will receive as much SHIT (Special High Intensity Training) as possible. The Government has always prided itself on the amount of SHIT it gives its citizens. Should you feel that you do not receive enough SHIT, please bring this to the attention of your MP, who has been trained to give you all the SHIT you can handle. Sincerely, The Committee for Economic Value of Individual Lives (E.V.I.L.)

Reference India: indeed, what a joke!

Chrisp65, Follow the money, defence contracts with Saudi are big business. However, if he is really just big timing it to get his face in the papers then it's a particularly inappropriate issue to try and get clever over.

Ignoring the other stuff because I neither agree with it nor do I want to spend even more time showing where you are wrong again, Okay good, so now we have confirmed there was no personal abuse and you've copped out of defending the indefensible Blair... I wasn't dismissing the fact that the world is getting ready for business with Iran, (much of it being facilitated next door in my current location) it's just irrelevant to this matter. My point was that the real driver behind the sudden French opposition to doing a deal (on the terms expressed and accepted by every other major nation) wasn't about jockeying for commercial advantage, it was about Hollande being the Saudi's bitch and attempting to do their dirty work for them. The Israeli's will doubtless be doing the same in the piece of real estate they own in Washington, namely the US Congress.

Please, quote the personal abuse so I can report myself to the MOD's for a damn good thrashing. If you don't I'll assume you know there was no personal abuse and your comment was simply PFE. About the Tory votes for Iraq, the answer was implicit in the reference to the dodgy dossier. However to be clear (not that it worked last time) the "evidence" presented to Parliament was cooked, as almost every sentient being in Britain now recognises. The Government of the day deliberately misrepresented the information available to build a totally false prospectus for invading Iraq, that being Saddam's possession of WMD. No doubt you will insist that the Tories knew about this despicable behaviour, but given the fact that Blair concealed it from a good number of his own Cabinet I see no reason to assume the Tories or anyone else outside his inner circle of liars and charlatans knew exactly what he was up to. If the Tories had known the truth maybe they would still have backed Blair, who knows? Certainly not you. However given the fact Blair lied to the entire country I guess we'll never know and it's one for the alternate history thread... No, the real driver is that the Saudi and Israeli lobbies really don't want Iran to have any nuclear capability, even civil power. The Iranians have a right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and denying them this is not only wrong, it will eventually lead to war. Ahmedoinjihad has now gone and there is a chance to slowly bring Iran back into the international fold. The Persians are trying to meet us halfway and kicking dirt in their faces to appease the Wahhabi sponsors of Al Qaeda is simply f'in dumb. Step forward Monsieur Hollande, France's answer to Frank Spencer.

As said obsessed with Labour - you forget of course that in fact that if wasn't for the Tory opposition the Iraq war vote would never have been passed as there were so many Labour dissenting voices in parliament. But let's not let facts like that get in the way of any sort of obsession shall we? Funny old thing, you spend most of your time in OT posting frenzied rants against the current government, to the extent that I really do worry about your blood pressure. That is apparently classed as 'comment' in the condem gov thread. I happen to mention the warmongering liar party (sorry, "Labour") in the context of a comment by Maqroll on supposed left wing pacifism and you call me obsessed - several times.... I'd say "you couldn't make it up*", but quite clearly that would be wrong. As for a tongue in cheek reference to le frogs being a xenophobic comment.... seriously? Have a word with yourself, mate. * Copyright T Blair, Dodgy Dossier, 2003. Sorry you are posting links to articles behind a pay wall with the FT. The WSJ says "well done France, thank god you stopped Iran getting nuclear power".. Well duh, we want them to have it.

It does make sense Drat but I'll spell it out for you: clearly given the warmongering nature of the last Labour Government it would be a mistake to equate the left of politics with an aversion to conflict, or indeed an attachment to peace. Far from being an obsession it is a simple statement of fact. In that sense Maqroll's statement is incorrect and further to that Hollande was very keen to pile into Mali at the first chance of giving his armed forces a good old run out in Africa. You dig?

what a strange statement, unless of course you are saying only left wing thinkers would suggest peace? And by that thinking right wing thinkers are basically only happy if there is war? Perhaps Maqroll has forgotten that our equivalent of George W. thin out their numbers! Bush" was actually the British Labour Party? Easy mistake to make given their equality of idiocy. Looking at the current state of the French economy, you might think so. However I rather agree with the Iranian view that Hollande's strings are being pulled by other forces, but from the land of the two holy mosques and not Tel Aviv. Le Frogs have been getting very cosy with Saudi of late, backfilling the gap in influence created by Riyadh's anger at the US decision not to bomb Syria. Blocking this deal was exceptionally dumb and definitely not in the script, hopefully they can still fix it up in the next few weeks. le frogs? Oui.

Looking at the current state of the French economy, you might think so. However I rather agree with the Iranian view that Hollande's strings are being pulled by other forces, but from the land of the two holy mosques and not Tel Aviv. Le Frogs have been getting very cosy with Saudi of late, backfilling the gap in influence created by Riyadh's anger at the US decision not to bomb Syria. Blocking this deal was exceptionally dumb and definitely not in the script, hopefully they can still fix it up in the next few weeks.

So take her during the summer...

Spent a few months in BC and it's hands down the nicest place I've ever been on earth. If wifey wasn't so set on an eventual return to the UK that's where I'd be heading to live.

He should be on the next plane if he's got a lick of sense.

Well, that's a convincing rebuttal.