Awol

Wouldn't that come under the category of "evidence" and be worthy of investigation rather than being dismissed as "desperation"? If taken in the context of alleged cover ups during the same period at Morecambe, Basildon and what we know happened at Stafford, it does rather make a nonsense of Labour's lofty claims about its record on the NHS.

First reaction was blimey Why blimey? GCHQ are spies, their job is to gather information covertly. The headline should read: "GCHQ does its job, weasel American runt shafts them". Sadly it isn't the last betrayal of a close ally this little ***********er has up his sleeve.

Quite a lot of people have permits for weapons here ranging from the beautiful old school Jezails to pistols of various type - Glocks are popular but there are also a lot of old Russian Makarovs kicking about. If you get out of town into the desert it's not unusual to see Bedouin carrying AK's. I only know of two ex-pats with live firearms and I don't think either are licensed. One has an old Henri-Martini rifle of Zulu vintage and the other has a bolt action Lee Enfield .303. For someone more accustomed to smaller NATO calibres the round for the Henri-Martini is an absolute beast, it looks more suited to shooting elephants than people. If I ever felt the need to carry here it would be time to leave the country.

You must know that's not true. I'm sure you're aware of all the reasons why it just doesn't work that way. Did the whole Leveson inquiry pass you by? No it did not. Is it not the case that a whole raft of former Murdoch stable journo's are awaiting trial for illegal practices?

I'd be interested to hear what kind of press you would like to see? A press where the Prime Minister judges and deems what is acceptable for publication or not? You believe in government censorship? Surely in the Millliband case the press has worked perfectly. The Mail printed an opinion and the response to that opinion, other newspapers have all pitched in with their take on the story, leaving individuals with a wide variety of sources and views to formulate an idea for themself. A free press did its job, no need to get the witch hunt torches lit! A free press should not though work outside the guidelines of what is decent - The Mail has in this case (and may others before IMO) overstepped that The issue you there of course is the subjective nature of what is "decent". If comment is libellous it will end up in court, if it is in "bad taste", well, that doesn't need to be regulated. As WATF has said, the resulting public discourse will ultimately define that. Wanting to control the press according to subjective criteria is a very anti-democratic instinct and is, imo, an argument advanced by people who haven't really thought through the potential consequences. I believe Lenin used to call them "useful idiots". He was right.

Why thank you kind sir.

I'm afraid that's bollocks mate. Alright Captain Serious, whatever you want.

I think we should have both for interests of...."balance"

1) The Daily Fail publishes a nasty article about Ralph Miliband. 2) Little Ed gets very upset and defends his father. 3) Cameron said Ed has every right to defend his own father and he would do the same. 4) VT says Cameron is evil. This site is pure comedy sometimes.

Yeah I did comment on that one .. needless to say a labour supporter defended it as a good idea It is a good idea. Maybe they can combine it with a promise to give the country a referendum on EU membership?

The one that made me laugh was his conference announcement that Labour would force companies hiring a foreign worker to also hire a "British" youngster at the same time to be trained alongside them. Obviously didn't think it through very deeply as it was abandoned the following day for being against EU law. Not as good as knocking over 1 billion pounds off the stock market in a day with his energy price fixing announcement, or indeed promising that the State would seize lawfully held private property if its owners weren't doing what Labour wanted with it. Mulitimillionaireband is a chimp and Labour are scum.* *I don't actually mean that but seemingly it's the kind idiotic generalisation people post on politics threads these days.

I think it only applies to families with one wage earner who are paying the basic rate of tax, i.e. not the "rich" - or even the moderately comfortable. That is taking the "press release" stance on this rather than looking at how it would map out So how else is it going to "play" out, Drat? Obviously you don't consider people such as widows, widowers, single parents, - "the one in fours kids growing up in single parent environments". Even the coalition "partners" (snigger) have stated that idea was target at the wrong priority. I am not surprised though that right wing thinkers like the idea as it certainly fits in with what is a flawed idea of society I hadn't expressed an opinion on the issue one way or the other, I was just correcting villajax's misconception that this was somehow going to benefit the better off, when actually it won't do that at all. You then made some odd remark about a press release but didn't show how I was wrong in my comment, before going off on one again about the "right wing" and telling me what I think. I suppose there is comedy value in your posts - if nothing else

I think it only applies to families with one wage earner who are paying the basic rate of tax, i.e. not the "rich" - or even the moderately comfortable. That is taking the "press release" stance on this rather than looking at how it would map out So how else is it going to "play" out, Drat?

I think it only applies to families with one wage earner who are paying the basic rate of tax, i.e. not the "rich" - or even the moderately comfortable.

Well, we don't all fit neatly in to little stereotype boxes mate. Trust all is well.

That's right, withthe caveat, that there's an extra factor. In the question you pose "what to do about it without fundamentally disadvantaging ourselves economically" there's also a weighting - if we do nothing, because it will disadvantage ourselves (now) economically, what will be the economical damage in the future, from not doing anything. It's overcoming the short term view, and looking longer. If the planet heats up and becomes drier and hotter, then there's (say) less water and food. So growing food is more expensive, there's more need for air-con, or whatever. That costs money. I dunno how you quantify these things. How do you mitigate for war over water, or power supplies? It's almost impossible to have the discussion because any mention of treading an onyone's turf, or vested interests brings about a storm of PR and scare stories. If (say) we talk about Nuclear, then there's scare stories about Fukishima. If you talk about wind power, then it's the perils of wind turbines, etc. etc. It's not balanced. The Media treat untrained sceptical views with equal weight to scinetists, in the interests of "balance", or Fox news will just go with their view and sod the balance. At least the debate is moving away from the first phase "it isn't it happening?" the next is "well we can't do anything about it because....", then finally we'll get to "oh heck, we have to do something" but that's sadly a way off in my view. In reply to you and BOF: Of course vested interests are the obstacle, they control the politics and they control the media, but that is not insurmountable. The only way to 'cross the Rubicon' is to elect a political party committed to doing it, in a country with the means to deliver it - which narrows the options significantly.

Well you've hit on the fundamental difficulty here. Solving the planet's problems causes all manner of financial problems. And it causes them to very powerful industries and people. Unless those industries can get in on the ground floor and continue to make profits from the new systems and processes, they will actively and aggressively lobby against their introduction. Then we have China. It doesn't serve the immediate interests of the money men to solve the planet's problems. Their priorities are in complete conflict with those of everyone else. Free market capitalist economies certainly aren't perfect, they're essentially greed driven. It's important that the human race can see what issues it faces, so that movements can be made to force changes politically and move towards inventing better technologies for the benefit of the future. Exactly and why it needs state backing to achieve it. Greenpeace et al do not have the juice to make something like this happen. We paid £700 odd billion to bail out the cocaine driven egomaniacs in the banking sector, we could crack real sustainable energy (not pissing around with laughable wind farms) for a fraction of that. Education is the key to unlocking global consciousness and the internet is the medium - for now. In terms of vested interests just build it then give it away in the greatest act of philanthropy in history, then it can't be monopolised. Once the genie is out of the bottle then that is it, there would be no going back. Access to unlimited, clean and virtually free electricity would be transformational in terms of human progress.

I'd come down behind this view as well. On the basis that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, surely we can't unlock so much carbon in such a short space of time without fundamentally changing the balance in the atmosphere and with it the weather - although my missus did her Doctorate in this stuff and I may be suffering from Stockholm syndrome after a decade+ of her eco propaganda. The bigger issue is what to do about it without fundamentally disadvantaging ourselves economically. Any solution has to be global in scale to be effective because the UK is a drop in the ocean in terms of CO2 emissions and incapable of making any sustainable difference unilaterally through reduction of emissions. What I'd love to see is UK Gov saying "right, we're going to solve the problem of cold fusion and we won't stop until we've cracked it". Success would crash the global economy in the short term and make us a lot of enemies (because it is built on hydrocarbons), but once we got past that it would be the answer to so many of the world's problems. We've got the scientists, we've got the facilities, what we need is the political will.

Written by Andrew Adonis, Blair's policy chief... It is, like all political statements, an opinion (not exactly an objective one either) not fact. Also, you do realise that it's possible to be left or right of centre without being slavishly wedded to either Labour or the Tories, don't you? That kind of tribal thinking went out with the Ark. EDIT: slepping Shakes head Let me know if anything falls out.

Written by Andrew Adonis, Blair's policy chief... It is, like all political statements, an opinion (not exactly an objective one either) not fact. Also, you do realise that it's possible to be left or right of centre without being slavishly wedded to either Labour or the Tories, don't you? That kind of tribal thinking went out with the Ark. EDIT: slepping

Well I can't speak for the Tory supporters, but far from being afraid those that I know are frankly thrilled by the way Miliband is performing. His drift to the left away from the political centre ground is a gift for the coalition they have done nothing to earn but will no doubt gratefully accept. In Labour's hands the slogan of "One Nation" is as empty and meaningless as the Tory "Big Society" slogan and as Bickster points out, is actually a rip off of historical Tory language. The difference is that the Tory definition of "One Nation" politics was to ensure the poor were not left behind as the country industrialised and to ensure the wealthier recognised their obligations to the less well off - since abandoned in the pursuit of a more brutal free market capitalism, Neo-Conservatism if you will. Miliband has twisted that and is using the "One Nation" slogan as a vehicle to try and set up a rich vs poor dichotomy, rather than trying to bind the nation together despite the differences in financial means. It's good old fashioned class war Labour stuff that appeals to the tribal and vindictive core vote, while making everyone else want to vomit. Long may Miliband continue as Labour leader.

wow .. an all time low in a long long long list of lows Not really - the undertone to posts on here - and some on other forums that I have seen certainly backs up the tone of what I am saying. You may not like the fact Tony but it's pretty clear to see what certain people actually feel but neither have the conviction nor (fortunately) the right to say it on here. What have other forums got to with here? If you're going to imply that people are racist, why don't YOU have the conviction to come out and say it? Because that is certainly against the rules of VT. If you don't believe that certain posters on here have views that cross the borderlines of what is correct and civil then fair enough that is your choice. Others may disagree with you, but all posts have to be undertaken by the rules of the forum. So, it is possible for you to discern that certain posters, who you may never have met, are racist/homophobic/anti-semitic by the fact that they don't post such comments on VT. This is further supported by the fact you have read racist/homophobic/anti-semitic comments elsewhere on the World Wide Web, therefore demonstrating that Off Topic is populated by repressed wrong 'uns. As you say, that's pretty clear evidence.

**** me the British public were stupid enough to let Cameron, and his right wing nutjobs, in through the side door chaperoned by the lib dems. Ed is nailed on to walk in through the front door. Despite him not being popular Labour are still decently ahead in the polls. He is clearly becoming a more polished leader and this will only improve and be enough to see Labour win in 2015. The gurniad on Friday had them neck and neck http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/20/labour-party-conference-future-past-editorial If the economy continues to improve then it's not going to be quite the shoe-in for Miliband that the left wing "nut jobs" have been crowing about for the last 12 months. That said if it goes south again then Cameron and Co are definitely toast in 2015. Be interesting to see where they all stand in the polls after the Tory conference.

When Ed was Energy Minister he says we must have more wind turbines requiring subsidy. When Ed was Energy Minister providers through cost the necessary subsidies to consumers adding 10%+ to household bills. In opposition Ed says energy bills are too high and energy companies must freeze prices.... In opposition Ed says the energy sector must be de-carbonised by 2030..... Anyone else notice the pattern of his idiocy? I hope to Christ the people aren't stupid enough to let him into No 10. Even Clegg would be preferable.

Not quite sure why he'd expect anything else attitude wise at a time when Britain was the last hold out against Nazi tyranny. Should he voice no criticism of the country that became his refuge? Do we expect refugees to clutch their cap in the hands while thanking us profusely at every turn for the rest of their lives? I don't. I don't think we give refuge in order to give ourselves the shallow satisfaction of people acting like peasants before the lord of the manor. It would be nice if they didn't plot against us and try to kill us, but I think we give refuge because it's the right thing to do, not in anticipation of effusive thanks. I completely agree but "sometimes almost wanting us to lose" the war seems way beyond being ungrateful. Anyway he was a Marxist so it's unsurprising, at least at the time he didn't have the excuse of historical perspective and knowing that Marxism would become an utterly failed and discredited ideology everywhere it was tried.