Awol

Gordon Brown brings Britain to the edge of bankruptcy ..I predict a riot..

Born in Sutton, moved away at 16 to work and came home about four years ago.

I thought 6'0 was supposed to be the average? :winkold: Hell I'm 5'3, EVERYONE is tall... eh... he's talking about a different average than this thread I believe Not unless he's confusing symbols... Come on lads, it's sweet that she didn't get it.

I thought 6'0 was supposed to be the average? :winkold:

A huge 5'10.

The problem is Jon (and Richard) though you have to move to a more stable point than we are now. I don't think you are saying that all of the "rules" that were in place should now be dropped are you? What rules, Gordon's "Golden rules"? :winkold: I didn't know there were any rules left to be honest! I don't think we are moving to a stable position, we are in the shit and the pound is going to continue falling for a while yet imo. When the actual scale of our indebtedness is realised (ie, someone sits down with a calculator and works out how much PFI is going to cost) combined with a shrinking economy, international investors deciding they've had enough and the suspension of foreign credit lines etc, it's quite likely it will all collide next year and make the impact of a bad global recession on the UK worse than most. Well I don't think Labour have handled the part nationalisation of banks very well because they've poured our cash in but don't have the power to force them to lend it back to us as business loans etc. The only thing that will work now imo is full nationalisation to free up the flow of credit and prevent many otherwise sound small businesses from going under because they cannot get a good line of credit with the bank. When the recession is over and investors have got good money again then float them one at a time and put all proceeds back into the Treasury. It might take 15 years to renationalise them all but it would get us out of corner right now and minimise the damage. It would also make foreign investment think twice about going elsewhere and even encourage new investment in. UK plc is hurting but isn't about to go bust so the money would be safe enough to restore confidence all round.

Ian surely the thing that is "wrong, wrong, wrong" with that objective is that it seeks to reintroduce the economic conditions that put us into this hole in the first place. That being massively excessive personal and government debt and an inflated housing market that distorted the entire economy? Richard's comment seems absolutely sensible to me.

Moyles= Oxygen thief

You do understand mate that the reason inverstors are losing confidence in the UK which has led to the subsequent devaluation of sterling is due to a recognition that the UK ecomony is in such a poor state compared to other nations? A tanking pound is far from the 'least' of our worries Ian, it is an indicator that UK Plc is in deep shit.

Is Mr Obama planning to do something about the infrastructure in the UK? :? Quite, and the UK and US econmies do not stand any meaningful comparison anyway so an argument based on "well Obama's talking about doing 'X' so we should too" is a false one. An economy much closer to ours in size is Germany who have of course berated the Government for the "utter failure of Labour's economic policies" and "crass Keyensianism".

On a lighter note this is worth a giggle from PMQ's yesterday.. Gordon's Superman complex I'm glad he saved the world, he's spent everything else!

Who is that directed at Ian?

Still convinced that trying to borrow our way out of a borrowing crisis is the best course of action? Britain worse credit risk than McDonald's

Gotcha, thanks. I thought it meant any publication having the temerity to constructively analyse Government policy - criticise Labour=hate paper.

Does a doctoral thesis qualify as a 'hate paper'? What is a hate paper btw?

If I had kids and could afford it I'd definitely send them private.

Sorry Ian but that doesn't make any sense. I think you'll find the other side of the argument to yours is suggesting that a DNA database containing samples from people who have committed no crime is unecessary and unlawful. It appears the EU agree. You wouldn't disagree with them, would you? Edit: Your 'bottom line' question is also irrelevant, no one is sugesting it's a case of in favour of DNA evidence or not, that's ridiculous. But it isn't as black or white as you try to suggest. Jon - the argument that get's trotted out by a lot of people is infringement of civil liberties, with little or nothing to back that up. You say a database in unnecessary but surely anything that can help with ensuring the correct people are brought to justice is pro civil liberties? Not sure what point your comment is about me and the EU, hopefully not some point scoring. The bottom line question is not irrelevant though at all and I agree it's not black and white. If you say that DNA should be a permissible tool for evidence gathering then you have to ensure that the authorities can use it to it's full capability. To join the DNA club it appears that you are saying you have to have committed a crime before, which goes back to then an assumption that all crime is committed by the same set of people. I suspect this will go round and around again, and as said in another post I think that the main argument is more political that practical - so will leave it there No not points scoring ref the EU, it was intended as a gentle joke. I didn't say a database was unecessary, it is a useful tool in fighting crime and non of the naysayers on here are suggesting otherwise. The problem imo - and forgive me if we are going round and round because I can see your argument and I'd like you to see mine - is that either a universal database or something approaching that where the DNA of people who have done nothing wrong is retained for future use, is fundamentally wrong. I was once incorrectly lifted by plod for something and they took my DNA. I was never charged but it was retained. Why? In case they got it wrong once but I looked a likely sort to do something in future? This comes back to Snowy's very valid point regarding the presumption of innocence. What about my civil liberties, I've never committed a crime so why can't my civil liberities be respected and the sample destroyed? It appears that the EU agree with me, Gringo, Snowy and others that this should be the case and that our current system is very wrong. I don't expect you to agree but it would be nice - no sarcasm - if you can see that we have a valid point of view. Yes the police should be able to use DNA evidence where it is available but why should that mean everyones DNA being held so that method can be used to it's fullest capacity? Following that argument why isn't every child in the land finger printed at birth? It's the same principle and would be just as 'practical' as you put it. FWIW this isn't about politics for me, it goes to the heart of the type of society we wish to live in.

Sorry Ian but that doesn't make any sense. I think you'll find the other side of the argument to yours is suggesting that a DNA database containing samples from people who have committed no crime is unecessary and unlawful. It appears the EU agree. You wouldn't disagree with them, would you? Edit: Your 'bottom line' question is also irrelevant, no one is sugesting it's a case of in favour of DNA evidence or not, that's ridiculous. But it isn't as black or white as you try to suggest.

Daily Mail rant? Exactly.

Indeed, the irony being the markets think America will suffer less from the recession.

Very neutral Jon :winkold: In a roundabout way I think he's right. For domestic policies I think the Lib Dems are far and away the best party or the one most in line with how I see things. The trouble starts imo in their approach to the outside world which is indeed quite 'wishy washy'. If they got a bit of a grip regarding foreign policy - and a new leader! - there's no way I wouldn't vote for them.

Just carrying over a conversation Bicks if that's ok? Thats fine, it was just about the accuracy of the poll more than anything, the conversation was fine - Bicks Precisely. I think Labour were scared of potential accusations that they were interferring in the commercial decision making of the banks they took stakes in but are now left in a situation where they have no control, having already shelled out stacks of our cash. Not the first time I've made this observation but there is no joined up thinking in government over this situation, and faced with the banks clamming up tighter than a duck's butt, what can they do? Seems to me there is nothing they can do other than full nationalisation so time to shit or get off the pot. And I voted Tory - again. Best of a bad lot at the moment. Edit: And I appeal to the BNP voter to stand up and have a chat about why, no abuse or sly comments just a genuine debate of your views.

After the recent - and very interesting - thread about the BNP's membership list I'm staggered that their vote has increased by one third on this poll in a single day. I would hope that if anyone will actually put their head up and explain why so we could debate their views, that they wouldn't just have people screaming fascist! (incorrectly as the Don so rightly pointed out ) at them. Sadly I think that's the main reason these posters won't identitfy themselves. Back OT (sort of as we seem to be talking about the economy a lot in this thread), I believe one of the main concerns of borrowing more when the economy is essentailly 'borrowed out' is the potential loss of investor confidence in Sterling and a collapse in the currency. It's dipping quite alarmingly already and if the speculators decide we are in real trouble then we really will be in real trouble. I think that possibly the only way to make a fiscal stimulus such as the one Brown is proposing actually work, would now be full nationalisation of the banking system in order to force them to lend. The current situation seems to be the worst of all worlds - tax payers heavily exposed but the banks with no actual obligation to lend. They have been recapitalised to a threshold where they can survive but not sufficently to give them the confidence to lend. That's just my take anyway and I don't pretend to be an expert in these things.

Ruining a country Tony, your spelling is shocking.

It would be interesting to take the temperature of VT on this tomorrow after the pre-budget report, because it seems we'll actually have a genuine choice to make between the policies of Labour and Conservative for the first time in, well, a long time