Marmora Man

My four reasons for voting Tory: 1. As a libertarian I believe the conservative party is closest to my political philosophy and most likely to implement my desire for a smaller government, reduced state control / centralisation (no ID cards Sidhue)and allow individuals greater freedom. 2. The only alternative is some form of New New Labour and the rhetoric of various contenders for the future leadership is even more depressing than the current Brownite views of life. 3. The current government has squandered a golden opportunity and created a weaker country, a less internationally respected country, the biggest economic downturn in living memory and completely failed to live up to its manifesto or the hopes and ambitions that the electorate were led to expect. 4. I live in Harriet Harman?s constituency and the idea of a New Labour ?Portillo momement? when the Harperson loses her seat is very appealing

???? said in the Gordon Brown thread: * edited to make sense of the quote Would you also be voting Tory at the next election? If so - why? If not - why?

Passing Perisher

The IRA, UDF and their many evil spawnings also have a history of illegal acts - I agree the chicken and egg argument but as MP has pointed out there was a lot of potential terrorist acts developing before the deployment of the undercover security forces. Discussing the deployment of undercover operatives with more than the absolute minimum of people would be illogical and dangerous. I was surprised that it was even mentioned but this was, no doubt, part of an agreed dual political / security strategy.

I think the charge sheet as laid out by Steven Katarai is valid as a set of allegations (despite the spelling errors). I don't think Gordon Brown is single handedly responsible for every ill set out in the letter but he did have a hand in all of them to a greater or lesser extent; he and the Labour Party should answer the charges or give way to another political party. Of course they will do neither. Brown is a formidable political operator (not the same as a formidable politician and he is certainly no statesman) who has marched rough shod over his rivals in Labour - resulting in him being the biggest shark in a murky pool of minnows. At the same he has used weasel words and actions to avoid taking any responsibility for any of the issues - the standing of politicians is now lower than it was in 1997, quite an achievement for the supposedly moral party. His apparent inability to admit that he has ever been wrong or in error is actually doing him more political harm than such an admittedly damaging admission would be. Somehow he can't see this. The knee jerk reaction by some posters against the Tories is small minded. Politics and political decisions should not be tribal affairs but a rational argument - I would argue that the current government has: a. Run out of steam b. Achieved very little in its 12 years of power. Particularly so given the enthusiasm that greeted its arrival - it had both the opportunity and the political good will to make a real difference to many - to reform the NHS, reform education, transform relations with our European neighbours - but it has squandered all this. The only piece of New Labour legislation that I can wholeheartedly support if the anti smoking bill. c. Become little more than a squabbling group of small minded individuals rather than a party in power; it is more reminiscent of student debating society during Freshers week. The Tory opposition is still weak on too many key areas - I would wish it was more positive, was publicising the true cost of New Labour's errors and proposing costed solutions to the problem(s). The Conservative party has not taken the real lead it should have as an opposition given the poverty of the government's arguments but it is beginning to work out a coherent set of policies on the economy and in other areas. I would recommend anyone interested in social justice to look at the output of Ian Duncan Smith's Council for Social Justice think tank. Many of their emerging policies and thinking are based in reality and developed in conjunction with people who have lived with and through the actuality of poverty.

Have a life? Read Go to the cinema Go to the theatre Make things Fix things Walk Climb Cycle Cook Drink Write letters / e-mails Ponder life Paint Climb trees Watch birds Fish Fix cars Go to comedy clubs Play music Play an instrument Count sheep Go brass rubbing Take up Morris Dancing (joking) Write a book Of course some things aren't covered by "watching sport" - I watch English cricket and at present that's rather more like a penance than a pleasure and it's not really sport either.

I'm with Sean McG on this. Absolutely standard practice - much fairer than MP's expenses which are not properly audited, relocation usually pays for receipted "out of pocket" costs of moving from one area to another at the request of the employer. So the employer pays: a. Agents fees b. Removal expenses c. Temporary accommodation while house searching (in my experience for a max of 3 months) d. Some incidentals - breakages, maybe a new cooker or similar (usually capped at a reasonable sum - say ?1,000). Again against receipts. So the relocation expenses / fees are about right. In my experience no-one paid relocation makes a "profit" on the deal, they merely have the majority (but not all) of the additional costs covered off. However, I would query why BBC is moving to Salford? It has a perfectly adequate base, staff and facilities in London. The total cost of moving the BBC will be huge (possibly including a temporary reduction in quality / performance as well) just to satisfy a government wish to achieve geographical diversity. London is the country's capital - it should be the center of things, this is not wrong but natural.

Skiing everytime.

I received this in my inbox today. I pass it on for consideration and discussion.

I forgot - Whale Meat in Norway, known as Hvalbeef (? sp ?). Horrid if fresh but better if it is hung for a while.

Don't eat red snow - reindeer p*** is red.

To add to the hypocrisy of New Labour John Prescott's comment was

Alligator Crocodile Elk Horse Elephants Footprints (Spam Fritters - naval delicacy, don't ask about Black Pudding)

Kristymac1 has beaten me to it - but I can recommend the London Loop - simple navigation but you see a different face of LOndon and its suburbs. I started at Woolwich Arsenal and am up to Wimbledon so far - next to Richmond and then the North of the river section. It ends by walking under the Thames back to Woolwich. Good fun and simple walking - not to be compared with Nidderdale, Wensleydale, Pennine Way or Highland Way - but enjoyable.

Annaj, Nice analogy - I agree entirely. I have refrained from setting up a couple of new threads because I doubt they would be given any serious thought / discussion. Have reverted to discussions over whisky at home instead.

Off the deck and scattered to leeward.. In my time I've conducted a number of ashes scattering ceremonies. On at least two occasions the ashes "blew back" and stuck on the side of the submarine, which meant we had to wash them off the casing when we arrived back in port. We sent the grieving widow and family a nice extract from the ship's log and an annotated chart showing where the ashes were scattered but omitted to mention that the bulk of the ashes had been washed off in Haslar Creek. Haslar Creek - once more popularly known as "Shit Creek" is rumoured to be the origin of the "shit creek without a paddle" phrase as to be taken up said creek was to go to the naval hospital in early 19th century - where with mortality rates of 60% + going up the creek usually meant death.

I'm to be cremated, followed by a party (absolutely no religious theme) followed by my ashes being scattered at sea from a submarine.

It is possible to support the intention but still find that the detail is lacking. However, of my five examples the opposition opposed at least two - Pension raid and deployment of troops to Afghanistan without adequate support.

There is a tendency, on the part of some, to take every opportunity to make a joke, diverting the thread into a series of "humorous" exchanges between mates and, effectively, hijacking the subject. Once in a while it is genuinely amusing - when it happens so often and by the same posters it becomes a little tedious. It may be part of the problem that Brum's identified above. EG: Tessa Jowell's post today about how to report bad behaviour on buses, the recent post about Alan Sugar and his possible mayoral candicacy.

Sean, Poor logic. Howard / Hague / IDS & Cameron have not and are not in charge of government. The Labour Party is. This government - T Blair's & G Brown's has been characterised by headlining statements and then a lack of attention to detail: Remove tax breaks on Pension Funds - ?5 Billion a year win for government coffers - but destruction of previously internationally regarded British pension system. Make the Bank of England independent - but fail to put in place a sufficiently rigorous regulatory regime. Result - economic meltdown. Invade Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction - whoops, no WMD. Result 150+ deaths of British service and well over a 1,000 serious injuries plus countless thousands of Iraqi deaths and heightened tensions with Islamic world. Send Parachute REgiment to Helmand Province - John Reid states "We'll not need to fire a single shot". 3 years and several million rounds of ammunition later - we're losing servicemen's lives again. Take over RBS and sack the CEO. Fail to check up on the small print of the deal - make a song and dance about something that is legally watertight and beyond government interference (cf: Mick Mac's post above.

There is an essential difference in my experience. Public Sector - budget = target. Must be spent or next year's budget will be reduced by at least the amount of unspent money. The aim of public sector accounting is not to overspend or underspend the budget to any noticeable degree. Private Sector - budget = estimate of costs & revenues. If by spending more revenues profits rise - then spend more. If revenues & profits are falling, cut costs or redirect costs into revenue generating activity. I'd acknowledge that private sector departments such as marketing or HR may tend to spend to budget but a good Finance Director will encourage them otherwise very quickly.

That's this Gordon Brown government for you.

SteveT - more logical would be to allow councils to carry over unspent monies into the next financial year. It is the threat of losing their bduget that leads to the Feb / Mar splurge. Happens in all public sector organisations.

Hugenot - don't start me on ID cards. A financial and database disaster waiting to happen. It would be the lynchpin that ties all the other government databases together to one unique identified. Fortunately it's probably a cost too far given how much money this government has committed tax payers too already.

It's Labour looking to find a Stop Ken candidate. Tom McNulty was on the cards, Labour's tame rottweiller, but he has said he doesn't want it.