Awol

If the election was tomorrow I'd vote Tory as things stand. With a better leader and a healthy dose of reality I could easily change that to the Lib Dems but personally I think Clegg is a joke who would be as bad Brown if he got in. Bicks floated this a while ago and I agree, the trick would be finding the mechanisms to develop policy proposals in an over-arching way so the left hand actually knows what the right is doing and can coordinate their efforts. ( Not that this actually happens under the current arrangements either but they do at least provide the framework for it to happen under a competent government )

3 - Winter of discontent for me, possibly sooner if the unions start to throw their weight around. Either way I think it will be the unions that do for him, directly or indirectly. IMO any Labour supporter should welcome his end because Brown will not win a GE - no way in hell.

Any idea of the contractor? link

*accuracy warning* Isn't the cut essentially going to be used to top up the coffers of banks after recent loses? I didn't think it would be passed on to consumers/mortgage holders at all? May well be wrong..

United, purely becasuse they are the only team there I think are truely better than us.

economic meltdown. We all lose our jobs the B of E closes. all our homes are repossessed. we all take to living in cardboard boxes on the streets. Existing tramps are not happy - grumble about overcrowding on the streets. Green Dave comes in and saves us all. Jon, why are you not in government?

Grings, Just assuming hypothetically for a sec' that prices fall by 20% over two years as you suggest. The knock on effects for the rest of the economy will be...? I'm guessing rising unemployment, currency devaluation etc but can you put any flesh on the bones?

Ouch! Three million families 'will be plunged into negative equity within a year

Connery by a country mile. Anyone who can walk up to a bird and say "ahh, Pussy" without getting slapped is a god.

Good post Richard, sums it well for me.

I voted no because the poll asks whether we can compete for the more expensive players and I'm assuming that bracket will be the likes of David Villa ie 20 million plus. I think we have decent money to spend and will hopefully see a few more additions between 8-12 million which is all good. I don't think we will be competing for the more expensive players for these reasons: -Massive transfer fee -Wages -Not able to attract them anyway at this stage of our development.

read that the other week ... bit of a let down after the first one and not a patch on the Emperor series he did , i felt ... Only just seen your post Tony but yeah, agreed on both counts. I'm having my second crack at the Quran at the moment, bloody heavy going and pure hell-fire and brimstone so far - only about 50 pages in mind.

Yes, he's done wonders already.

^^ Sci-Fi nonsense, it's all perfectly safe don't you know. Now, Pop Idol, good huh?

..I still would though.

Depends, if your job is oiling up Swedish bikini babes I'd say you are neglecting you're duties. Anything else and you're working too hard.

They are equally foul and need gang banging by lepers.

As posts about the national DNA Database have been going in this thread as well as ID card issues I thought I'd add this on the subject by a former colleague of mine, now a solicitor. Question: Should it be allowed? Some good points there I thought and also applicable to the ID card debate...

If I can take the last bit first mate, yes they do work in terms of restricting access to secure sites(and sometimes the rozzers will let you off for speeding if you flash one, allegedly ). I am not aware of an MOD 90 - mil' ID card - being cloned or forged but that's not to say it hasn't happened. The ones that have beem lost couldn't be used by anyone other than the card holder unless the bloke on the front gate was an utter mong. However all forces personnel agree to surrender a good chunk of their civil rights in order to serve so carrying an ID card isn't an issue. I don't think it's on to take the same line with the general population who have certainly not consented to giving up those rights. On your benefits point an ID card could be used to verify who the claimant is but I don't think that is where the fraud is happening, it seems to be more about people claiming who aren't entitled to at all. Either way that wouldn't be solved by ID cards and immigrants who are illegally claiming benefits wouldn't have them anyway so it wouldn't work as a catch all solution imo. Biometric passports I think we both agree on, unfortunate but probably unavoidable. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with the banks, they seem to manage perfectly well now. Unless the government gives them the extra option of demanding "achtung papers!" - which they would no doubt take up - I don't see why it's relevant. Are you proposing they could be used to prevent credit card fraud? *a subject I know naff all about btw* As for going to the gym I wouldn't know about that anymore We seem to be starting from the premise that 'we' want ID cards and we will find uses for and reasons why we should have them, reverse engineering the issue. It just seems a little perverse to me and from an economic POV vast expense for no appreciable gain.

As Gringo wont answer any of the points, what's your take on those I raised? I'll try but you've made a lot of points, which ones?! We have plenty of forms of ID already so I fundamentally do not accept that as a good reason, it's also not impossible to prove who you are using existing forms of ID. I concede that air travel will probably necessitate biometric passports for security reasons and that's the way it has to be. It does nothing however to make a case for domestic ID cards imo.

So 17 pages and still missing a reason why we should have them. I'm gonna ask again Mr D' - and not picking on you but - why?

Are you trying to sink your own argument here? Planes yes, because as you know the yanks are going to do it, so for international travel we wont have a choice. Any luck with a reason yet?

Ah you see that's exactly one point that people just cant sort out. On one hand these are fine as is a whole load of other ID card type things, but on the other hand its all wrong and an infringement of our civil rights. Surely it's one or the other? It's not that simple is it. Using biometrics to verify that you are who you say you are at an airport is one thing, having to use them in everyday life within the secure borders of your own country is just wrong and a total infringment of your civil liberties, aside from access and data security issues. If you want to know why I think that it's all in this thread and I'm not typing it again! Fact remains we are STILL to hear a SINGLE good reason for them so the only question that matters is WHY?

I think the whole point mate is that neither you - although it's not your job :winkold: - nor anyone in government have come up with a reason why we need them. Start off with terrorism, er no that wont fly, ok what about immigration? er no, that won't work either. So we're down to opening a bank account or getting a student loan, either of which can be done quite happily with existing forms of ID. Biometric passports I can understand - not like but that's irrelevant. There has not been a single good reason proposed for these things being introduced, as Pete said above the government are just being dogmatic now and it shows.

I voted blues before I read the thread, now I'd like to change my mind. The geordies going down would be hilarious..