SeanMacGabhann

the private sector doesn't pay for most things, much less everything private sector pays as little as possible to get people to do it's work for it. The people do the work and get a wage/salary. That's (give or take) the end of the deal for the private sector. And that's fine.. nothing wrong with that, everyones a winner Now people are also citizens of a country and we collectively pay into a kitty. This is not some New Labour trickery - it's what every single democracy does. And it works. If you can point to another country or a point in time where it doesn't work, I'm all ears. The main problem with the finances at the moment is not years of overspending - to pretend that it's not the huge private sector companies that threatened the fabric of our societies is just nuts. It's the injection of our/government money that is keeping things afloat. And yes it's a lot but people are blowing the debt way out of proportion. Not only is it a tolerable level of debt (better than japan's for example), all it takes is for people in work to stop whining, recognise the challenge ahead, pay up and get on with it To listen to people complain about how the budget did nothing "for them" - like they expect something. Imagine how these peolpe would cope if we had to go back to rations. The poor dears would implode.

I'm going to recommend Corsica - especially train ride through the middle. Although I think they have now modernised this. I've stayed in 2 of the coastal towns (Ajaccio and Calvi) there and it was hands down the best "summer" holiday I have had

I've been a fool all these years - there was me thinking nuclear power was a potentially dangerous number, aggressively pushed by the tobac... i mean nuclear industry and it's cronies when it tuens out it's just lovely and cuddly and gives you nectar points! I'm sorry for cheap sarcasm MM, but when you say "we can be pretty damn sure" I just reach for the valium. You know.. as mums were encouraged to.. I don't think nuclear power is evil! Horrendous maybe potentially but I like all of the upsides. But saying I or opponents brand it evil is craw-tickling. What is with the cutesy "somehow" oppenents thing it dangerous? Somehow??? If it was safe and as easy to look after as you claim it wouldn't cost so much would it? as for "cautionary principle", give 12 random people on the street the keys to your house and see how allied you become to the "cautionary principle"

Quids I know we disagree but I'm not getting the leaps you are making. I get you despise new labour (I'm not far behind you on that) but even so Let;'s say labour had some balls and for the last ten years pushed through the kind of regulatory system that would have prevented the current travails. Are you saying that the papers, the media and the general election would have been grateful? because I'm pretty sure they amount of hysteria about jobs lost would have seen them voted out. i could be wrong, it's just an opinion.... but even so I stand by it. So yes I may not be pointing the finger at you and your sarcastic mea culpas but the collective "we" is at fault Is the private sector being asked to pay for everything? Did I miss a memo - how do you make that out?

Agreed Brendan - but quids seems in unusually combatative mode today. - complaining about rampant capitalism = supporting communism apparently...

doesn't show a great deal of conviction or trust in the electorate But then again I believe the electorate share a large slice of culpability in the whole mess

Scanning the Sunday papers, looking for a Cameron pledge to roll back the new 50% tax rate.... Haven't found it yet Maybe, just maybe the mantra "it won't bring in revenue and may well be less" isn't *gasp* true

pffft - Sky+ is a fantasticly useful thing - but not for watching recorded football. football is live or nothing

I agree the challenge is to develop new sources of energy, or improve existing methods but my bottom line problem with nuclear is that unless you can guarantee 100% (and no such guarantee exists in any walk of life) the consequences of that 0.0 whatever % of something going wrong (and that could be leakage, attacks or general malfunction) render the benefits moot Quids - I took issue with you earlier because you bemoan a certain viewpoint and generalise to an offensive extent. Not everyone on the left is against nuclear energy. I want energy. I want clean energy. Why would I adopt an anti-nuclear stance because of left-leanings? It makes no sense. But no, I don't trust the general argument that the lessons of chernobyl have all been learned, applied and it's all ok now. If someone can reassure me my mind is open to change.

Hmmm - it would help your argument if you didn't follow shouting down people as thinking they are "right" by saying "I know bugger all about it. That makes it sound like chip on shoulder stuff rather than a proper debate Maybe some of the people you deride do know more about it and your fear of an energy holocaust prejudices your judgment? I'm not saying I do.. but it's possible some people know more than us right? I don't think either you or I trust any government or subcontracted company to not f***-up anything from medical records to ID cards. So despite any progress made in the years from chernobyl onwards, human fallacy means the likelihood of a fuck up increases with any proliferation of not just reactors but (more likely) the ongoing storage of the waste. And I don't think we are in any way equipped to deal with the fallout - people are rushing to reap the benefits and are "light" in our assesment of the risks

Ah nuclear energy - the CDO's of the energy world Come on quids - people who raise concerns about the "challenges" around nuclear energy and the storage for generations to come have a point - and dismissing it as leftie bobbins is both a cheap shot and doesn't inform the debate in any way If I have learned anything in life it's that anyone who is adamant that "there is nothing to worry about" is to be treated with a degree of suspicion directly connected to the size of the issue they are talking about. See also every economist over the last 10 years

Huggers. . I have a set going. Let me know how best to re up

Ah Felicia Snoop - a lady

I love dumb riffs I love songs which refer to Lady Mac But my word, Eldritch stole all of his stage moves from Bowie And with tickets procured for this year, time to check out some Massive Attack from last year

(my first ever) 100

score

although obviously commiserations to fear n' boozin!

It;s one of the reasons I admire Wenger - he is happy to keep the chequebook in it's proper place for the most part

I AM on your side Brendan, really I am - but just a few posts earlier we have someone saying they would gladly give up their (and our) civil liberties if it meant reducing crime. That sounds like paranoia to me (or over-reaction at least)

"Homerton" flippin 'ell... flashback. I forgot I even lived there. Glyn rd. Miserable. Just checked the house on google.. still miserable

would people feel safer/notice less crime hanging around Camberwell Green (loadsacameras) or Dulwich Village (rather fewer)? The question isn't which area do you prefer - just pointing out how little cameras do to improve crime. Which is important when people say "but it makes me feel safer"

Anyway Mick, it'll make for lively discussion when we hit the golf course, wha?

I'm with snorky on this. Many of the arguments presented (brain drain, taxes too high etc) seem to suggest that the world hasn't changed that much and once we correct this blip it's business as usual. When it was business as usual that brought us here

That's frightening matthew

But will that be the case after their next budget?