SeanMacGabhann

years of not paying for the things that need paying for will, unsurprisingly, lead to a period when those things get fixed and then you can draw a graph saying spending is inexorably rising. yes you can do that but it doesn't prove anything other than that Spending rose and would probably have plateaued were it not for the banking crisis (speculation! I know) but few would argue most of it needed doing. So let's just pay for it next time

Go to Google Maps. Go to 'get directions'. Type in from Japan to China. Look at point 43 of itinerary It made me chuckle at work anyway (this has probably done the rounds already so forgive me for repeating)

Which came first ? early (and current) human need to believe in an afterlife (and whistling in the dark before public lighting) or the different faiths of the world? Interesting that peope who believe in an afterlife hold out the possibility that it?ll be a good place ? for them anyway. I?m willing to bet that if the afterlife promised to be literally hell, fewer people would cling to the belief

Is there another reason companies are so keen to sell us how ?green? they are? They must think we, the public, can be appealed to via our better nature? Regardless, they should do it anyway. They earned the money, pay the tax. It doesn?t matter how much they are already paying if they should be paying more. I can?t pay half my tax and tell the treasury ?but if I left the country you wouldn?thave had the thousands I?ve paid in this year? TO tackle the subject of the debt itself tho ? this idea that we spent our way into it, throwing money around willy nilly really bugs me TO quote Jonathan Freedland (and I?m happy for people to correct him on any of the points, but I?d rather it didn?t descend into newspaper name-calling) ?A quick look at the figures confirms that, until the crash hit in September 2008, the levels of red ink were manageably low. The budget of 2007 estimated Britain's structural deficit ? that chunk of the debt that won't be mopped up by growth ? at 3% of gross domestic product. At the time, the revered Institute for Fiscal Studies accepted that two-thirds of that sum comprised borrowing for investment, leaving a black hole of just 1% of GDP. If the structural deficit today has rocketed close to 8%, all that proves is that most of it was racked up dealing with the banking crisis and subsequent slump ? with only a fraction the result of supposed Labour profligacy. After all, even the Tories would have had to pay out unemployment benefit. This is why Ed Balls was right to declare in his summer Bloomberg lecture ? which remains Labour's most robust effort yet to redirect the finger of blame away from itself ? that "it is a question of fact that we entered this financial crisis with low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment and the lowest net debt of any large G7 country".? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/19/osborne-public-wrath-labour-blame-game Going against the grain isn?t necessarily wrong either btw. Mass-delusion is not without precedent. It?s like a meme that has become so widespread no-one ever questions it

And rather than have a government make them, what if they sold it to customers as a USP. What if they found a way of saying they played their part in the debt reduction?

Oh I don't need to be told I'm going against the grain - that much is obvious to me. But to take the recent Vodaphone 6 billion tax bill as an example. They dispute and blah blah blah. And probably from an accounting perspective they may well be correct. But for the sake of argument, this company (and let's take as a given there are many many like them) earned enough money to come on the radar for that tax bill. What if, and I know it's bonkers, but what if they paid it. Similarly other companies in the same bracket that isn't a lot of social engineering, expensive legistlation or anything else - that's just pointing out that the "taxpayer" needn't be broken down into 15% on this, and 85% on that and they already pay x, y or z Just companies, earning that much money, should pay the tax nominally due

more likely the bus route was finished and he was heading back to a depot and did someone a good turn - and now we have "immoral"??

But your implication there MM, is that many of the things being cut are desireable, they just can?t be afforded I would rather more people were honest and said we don?t want them, we can?t afford them so there If they are desireable, I don?t think an overdrdaft is required to fund them. They are not extravagences and this is a country with means to support them (current situation possibly notwithstanding). What is lacking is the will for people who can stump up, to stump up. The rest (pro or anti) is just politics but if the question is CAN the country (as a whole) support the things that are being cut, then I say it can It?s analagous to people who bemoan good food, and say they don?t have the time or money. Your argument is often that that isn?t really true they just choose to spend those things elsewhere or can?t be bothered Now getting the hands on the cash is the hard part ? the people with it by and large cry and sqeal and say they will leave the country. (people without cash who bemoan anything lesser such as shift patterns get told they are selfish ? no such mass judgment on the well-off) But the means are there

Flawless logic Oh no, wait...

I read this on another forum and it captured exactly what I thought when it happened "And Szczesny played brilliantly. That epic-punch at the end was like a big 'FUCK YEA' aimed at Almunia and Fabianski. " Although with Fabianski playing well in the last 4 or 5 games we might be seeing an end to Arsenal's goalkeeping problem Bendtner was out of order for that second goal and should have been penalised. That said, and I'm not condoning it, it shows that Arsenal are getting a bit grittier and aren't quite the pushovers they were a year or two back And you can argue the goal changed the complexion of the game but overall the Arsenal win was right surely?

Thanks carrie - I couldn't remember me posting about this so I had a quick look - It wasn't me who was excited, I was quoting redjam's original post (I was worried senility was decending on me earlier than expected there)

Ridgeley - you have completely ignored the point I've made they were not discriminated`against because of religious apparel. "My main point is either you allow religious dress or jewellery or you don?t have any at all in the work place. " That is not what those cases were about - they were about the jewellery interfering in some way with the work. Now there is a debate to be had on how silly or not those rules are on health and safety grounds , but it isn't about religion If I belong to a non-Christian religion which promoted the wearing of metal skulls around our necks, that too would be banned, don't you see? If Sikhs had something similar, they too would be prohibited Them claiming it was about their faith is a complete red herring and makes Huguenot's point - if you cry victim when you aren't, peolpe will think you like it

Iron Maiden to play at.... oh no.. sory - it's just this is post 666 on this thread

Sometimes, JUST opposing is enough tho Marmora Man, if only to prevent things getting worse I see the model adopted by Barnet council (the easyjet model) is failing pretty badly at least compared to the targets they set The worry about these cuts is that they will cause all of the pain, deliver few if any of the savings and make the whole economy worse. But because the cuts are driven by ideology as much as pragmatism about the debt, opposing them for teh sake of opposing them is appropriate

You are conflating a lot of issues there Huguenot, in what comes across as a rather-too-keen attempt at being dismissive It makes no difference whether chicken are battery-farmed or free-range? Really? I can see why people might want to do become vegetarians - it's not going to happen to me, but I can understand some of the motivation if not the answers. But to be quite so dismissive of so many people (and drag meat-eaters into the same bracket) is a bit OTT. Your arguments are over-reductive I'm happy to be a meat-eater but if someone has looked battery-farming in the metaphorical eye, shrugs and says "I don't care" then that lessens them significantly in my eye. Yours A pasty-faced-teenager etc etc

This wave of construction could be the last gasp of effort before contracts are nixed and money runs out - I hope that view is wrong and it IS a good sign, but I wouldn't bet the house on it

I'm not convinced ridgely, but if you drag out the articles in question we can see I dtill say the articles in many cases are not allowed because of what they are made from, not what they represent. But I'm happy to be corrected by facts

er.. no there haven't there have been high profile cases which prove bugger all Nurse: I'm not allowed to wear a crucifix - it's discrimination!! Interested Party: Are other religions allowed to wear their metal objects dangling from their necks whilst working in the hospital? Nurse: no but it's still discrimination!!

Simon Kelner quoted as saying ""What it is targeting are the people who like the ethos of a quality paper but don't have the time or inclination to sit down and read it."" which is one of the most profoundly depressing things I've read in a while. It's like something Chris Morris made up

judging by the amount of self-satisfied corwing and back-slapping after osbornes speech last week, I'm not sure they think it's an evil at all

Indeed so marmora. Only it tends to be a dialogue rather than a top down edict. The times something has come down as a fait accompli, it has ended in failure. No union in my workplace of course, and im not arguing for one but i have seen bad, expensive mistakes made because of management intransigence. In this case, as i have said already, the fighters are wrong to strike. But that doesnt mean i think the management proposals deliver enough to justify so much Ill-feeling. The Workers should be annoyed with their leadership for not presenting their case, but equally it's a colossal failure of management to not be able to persuade their workforce of the merits of their own proposals. If I was a firefighter i wouldn't strike, but if i was management i would shelve the proposals pending further discussions. I don't see blame as being on one side

Mick Why do you think they are unaffordable? Was anyone storming the walls before this strike thinking "you know what's breaking the bank here? Those firefighters" When we all have our next work review are we going to suggest we make ourselves more affordable?

It's also been mooted several times onhere already Sounds like something people might be interested in but when it comes to doing, the threads tend to die a quiet death

sometimes capital letters alone are important You could help Uncle Jack off the horse, or....

I did ? and found it all a bit shrill if I?m honest. I can fill out a census form And I agree with the general message they are trying to convey. But the site is a bit? well? you know