Awol

@Drat The current government have ring fenced NHS spending, this is simply a fact. That NHS Trusts have chosen to cut front line staff rather than axing their own bloated management structures is indicative of what is wrong inside the NHS which is the discussion that should be under way instead of this pathetic attempt to simply paint one party or another as the enemy of the NHS. The aim, surely, should be to have the best possible care free at the point of delivery. I don't think any political party is disputing that. How that care is delivered is the question that needs to be addressed, if the reporting on the recent enquiry results are anything to go by. When patients are suffering as a result of political ideology then those sacred cows should be led out and shot, imho.

But even in this, I read the air of 'private sector good, public sector bad'. And isn't all of that at the heart of the debate about the NHS and its future? My point was specific to a comment about a particular industry and why a suggestion (which I didn't realise was actually meant to be tongue in cheek anyway) for it was probably flawed. There is a broader debate to be had about the future public/private dynamic in the NHS, but the most pressing point seemed to be the failings since 2005 highlighted by the recent independent report. Sadly OT is no longer the place it was when contentious political issues could be discussed rationally.

Serious question, why do you care so much what happens in America?

That's quite a limiting 'think of one example', isn't it? Is your wider suggestion that only private sector organizations do innovation, invention and discovery? No, the question was just meant as it was written. I'm not saying the state has no business investing private sector innovation for strategic purposes ( like this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/10181438/19000mph-spaceplane-gets-Government-funding-to-spark-UK-space-race.html) my point was that nationalisation doesn't equal innovation, but Bickster has already replied to that. Anyway, let's get back to ignoring the problems in the NHS and have a nice original argument about whether the Tories or Labour are more useless* when it comes to running anything beyond their own expense claims. * The correct answer is "equally" by the way.

Yep ... This Like hell, nationalise the drug companies The Pharma industry runs on innovation. can you think of one example where nationalising an industry has led to innovation?

says the man who does not even live here ............ Always trying to make it personal Drat and there really is no need. Trying playing the ball, not the man.

Many thousands of needlessly dead patients since 2005, warnings suppressed at the highest level (according to the independent enquiry) and despite increased spending under the last government and ring fenced spending under this one, the NHS is clearly still in dog order. So instead of actually looking at the systemic problems and why the NHS is failing, the politically motivated from Parliament to Off Topic use it as a chance to yell and call each other names... ...Is it any wonder it's such a mess?

Actually I think that's a good point. Surely at the very least he's guilty of manslaughter? The 'problem' is the crazy laws in the US of A have given him partial consent to do what he did. It's either the first sentence or the second, but it can't be both. Clearly he's not guilty of manslaughter, hence the verdict.

Very nice touch.

Could someone tell me the last time an Aussie batsman walked in a test match without being given out?

Unless of course it was a false flag...

Yes, it does all smell a little fishy.

Seems quite fitting really, but if it's a problem try using the khazi, you filthy animals. History has shown time and time again that dehumanising these people ("filthy animals") and not being willing to make reasonable concessions (e.g. not strip searching them if that BOSS chair actually does the trick) will only work against you. These are people who, despite all of the sacrifice and compromises made by both sides to achieve the Good Friday Agreement still cannot accept peace in Northern Ireland. If it was up to me they'd be in the ground, not HMP. Why make reasonable concessions to those who utterly refuse to make concessions themselves? F**k 'em, scum.

That's about the story I think. Brum has a large irish contingent so and of course is a uk city so they probably thought that's a good place to raise awareness. Did the job from what I saw! So, convicted terrorists are pissed off about being strip searched in jail? Cry me a f**king river. Seems quite fitting really, but if it's a problem try using the khazi, you filthy animals.

Yeah. Internment. Today. Of course. More importantly the drill was appalling, they should be ashamed of mincing around town like such a rabble.

Come on drat..... what was Ed supposed to do? It has come to light that members of his party and the Trade Union that provides most of his financial support is essentially engaged in electoral fraud - what other course of action does he have open to him. Exactly so, it's a shame it took him so long to do it, having known about the situation all week. Watson originally offered his resignation on Tuesday I believe, but true to form Miliband couldn't make a decision on what to do. It is justice for Watson who was part of Brown's dirty tricks team in No 11 and No 10 to be on the wrong end of off the record briefings, but the more interesting question is whether Falkirk is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to union involvement in electoral fraud. You talk about electoral fraud, which is a strong allegation in a public forum Chuka Umunna MP told the BBC: "We took advice from lawyers yesterday in relation to the Falkirk matter and as a result of the advice given have decided to refer it to the police." The "Falkirk matter" is of course the allegation of vote-rigging by Unite. Do you suppose that Labour have referred the conduct of their main donor to the Police because these allegations are baseless? Give over. Try the Indy, or the Guardian, they're saying the same thing and aren't exactly representatives of the right wing press. He did a good job on Murdoch to be sure, that doesn't mean there isn't a certain irony in him getting a taste of the political tactics he employed on others as one of Gordon the Moron's attack dogs. Quite different to what you alleged. You were accusing people of electoral fraud, which is quite a serious offence. As said on a public internet forum that is a major allegation you are making, I am sure you could and would back that up OK in court? Now if you are saying that it appears that there could have been some issues with the procedure for nominating a candidate for a MP and that has been reported to the police by the Labour party, that would be a lot better, but not what you have claimed. As we saw with Bercow and Twitter you should be very careful what you claim on the net, especially in respect to something as serious as you have alleged I'm terrified by your veiled threats.

Come on drat..... what was Ed supposed to do? It has come to light that members of his party and the Trade Union that provides most of his financial support is essentially engaged in electoral fraud - what other course of action does he have open to him. Exactly so, it's a shame it took him so long to do it, having known about the situation all week. Watson originally offered his resignation on Tuesday I believe, but true to form Miliband couldn't make a decision on what to do. It is justice for Watson who was part of Brown's dirty tricks team in No 11 and No 10 to be on the wrong end of off the record briefings, but the more interesting question is whether Falkirk is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to union involvement in electoral fraud. You talk about electoral fraud, which is a strong allegation in a public forum Chuka Umunna MP told the BBC: "We took advice from lawyers yesterday in relation to the Falkirk matter and as a result of the advice given have decided to refer it to the police." The "Falkirk matter" is of course the allegation of vote-rigging by Unite. Do you suppose that Labour have referred the conduct of their main donor to the Police because these allegations are baseless? Give over. Try the Indy, or the Guardian, they're saying the same thing and aren't exactly representatives of the right wing press. He did a good job on Murdoch to be sure, that doesn't mean there isn't a certain irony in him getting a taste of the political tactics he employed on others as one of Gordon the Moron's attack dogs.

Come on drat..... what was Ed supposed to do? It has come to light that members of his party and the Trade Union that provides most of his financial support is essentially engaged in electoral fraud - what other course of action does he have open to him. Exactly so, it's a shame it took him so long to do it, having known about the situation all week. Watson originally offered his resignation on Tuesday I believe, but true to form Miliband couldn't make a decision on what to do. It is justice for Watson who was part of Brown's dirty tricks team in No 11 and No 10 to be on the wrong end of off the record briefings, but the more interesting question is whether Falkirk is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to union involvement in electoral fraud.

I'm all for the power of positive thinking but you've got to be having a bubble there? Not at all. I think Milliband is playing a blinder. Not **** about and showing strong leadership. If anything he has turned this on its head from what could have been a potential disaster to now taking a gift horse of an opportunity to show he can be a very strong leader. If he falls out with UNITE (and his comments about Mckluskey "facing up to his responsibilities" in reference to the attempted rigging won't go down well) then who exactly is going to keep Labour afloat financially? Wow.

I'm all for the power of positive thinking but you've got to be having a bubble there?

Well Labour have handed a file on the Falkirk debacle to the rozzers so I'd imagine Cameron et al. will be pissing themselves.

@Privateer: my view on Qatar, FWIW, is that they fear a Saudi takeover aimed at grabbing their resources, specifically natural gas. They have some justification for this following just such an attack (or more accurately an aggressive probe rather than an invasion) which was repelled and passed off as rogue Bedouin. Few Bedu have a mechanised armour capability butthat's another story.. To forestall any future attempts to pinch their stuff the Qatari's have sought to use their wealth to embed themselves into the international scene as a significant player. How? By raising their profile politically (foreign interventions and creating a dependent customer base for LNG i.e. the UK for one) socially (world cup, aid programmes etc) and financially (now thoroughly intervoven in global markets, such as their removal would cause a global market crash). Why they lean towards the MB agenda (of Egyptian origin) for the ME is a question I can't really answer, but it is creating a growing problem that is catching broader attention - see Emir's recent 'abdication'... Let's hope his son is more sensible.

Could happen, as you say. More worrying short term is a bunch of the more *ahem*, "hard core" MB types deciding they don't really like this turn of events and indulging in some insurgency action.

Unlikely (the opposition vote was split last time because the alternative was a candidate from the old Mubarak regime), but even if it was another MB win, I don't think the new guy would be foolish enough to do what Morsi did last week and call on Egyptians to go and fight in Syria, however much he may have been pressured by the MB in Qatar (which is currently bank rolling Egypt) to do so. The army have been trying to keep a lid on Islamic radicalism in Egypt (its spiritual home) for decades and Morsi crossed the line.

Financially can you afford the loss of the extra you were expecting? Was it a nice to have or a need to have? If the latter then haven't you got a little one to take care of too?