AgentAxeman

GO ON SHOLA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry Parky, but you've been decieved by the Dark Side!

I reckon you must have really pissed a few people off to get 56 msg's in your inbox!

at least half the middle east Expensive date that. Doubt it, they grow them over there.

this. as to the op, i'd make cuts in the RAF and also in the navy but to a lesser extent. I'd keep the army to a similar level in numbers but would re-introduce conscription to keep parity in numbers (to the current level). not everyones idea of an ideal solution perhaps but it would take people off the dole if nothing else.

owning more than one house or car.

I'll try....................... ...................cat, hat, sat, etc.

of course. tell me Renton, if labour had formed a coalition with the lib dems instead of the tories, which party in this hypothetical coalition would have the main say in policy? So Labour would have won despite getting less seats than the oppositon? Is that how you see it? It could have easliy happened as well were it not for the relationship between Brown and Clegg. A coalition is what it is, the Conservatives did not win an outright majority and do not have a majority government. They did not 'win' and require the continued support of the Lib Dems to function. How long this will go on for is will be interesting. Admitting you were wrong would have been easier btw. of course. it doesnt matter how who climb the slippery pole as long as you get to the top. and in this case, the top is the people who dictate policy ie. the big winner. if labour had formed this unholy abomination of a coalition i would probably look on it as you look on the current coalition, with extreme distaste and mistrust but in the big scheme of things, labour would still be the winner as they would wield the most influence and power.

very true , your post would have been funnier however if i hadnt just explained that. It didn't though. You could have the most seats and the majority, unlike your beloved Tories. Hard work this like youre making it harder than needs be bud, i said the tories won the most seats. 306? to labours 250 something. tell me whats hard about that. The joke was based on your not knowing what majority means though. i fell into the trap of lazy language. for that, i apologise. i shall endeavour to be clearer with my definitions from this time forward.

of course. tell me Renton, if labour had formed a coalition with the lib dems instead of the tories, which party in this hypothetical coalition would have the main say in policy?

very true , your post would have been funnier however if i hadnt just explained that. It didn't though. You could have the most seats and the majority, unlike your beloved Tories. Hard work this like youre making it harder than needs be bud, i said the tories won the most seats. 306? to labours 250 something. tell me whats hard about that.

very true , your post would have been funnier however if i hadnt just explained that.

no they didnt, they got the majority of the votes. hence they won. (admitedly not by a sufficient margin to govern independently) No they didn't, if you don't know the definition of the word 'majority' then maybe you shouldn't be talking with the big boys. fair enough ewerk, however the tories did win the most seats which is what i, of course, meant all along.

no they didnt, they got the majority of the votes. hence they won. (admitedly not by a sufficient margin to govern independently) "They just lost less badly". Quite an achievement too considering they had the full force of Murdoch on their side, and were campaigning against a hugely unpopular PM in the midst of the deepest recession in peace time history. This is one of the things that really bugs me. I can accept there is a need for a coalition even if in reality it has minority support (not many Lib Dem supporters left now). But what I don't accept is that the government has the mandate to make such huge and brutal cuts, or to make such fundamental changes to the NHS (changes which were not even part of their manifesto). I would say that a coalition has a responsibility to be more measured in their actions than they have been so far, no wonder we are facing a winter of discontent. "They just lost less badly" cup half empty?? living on planet denial?? Im struggling to understand why you dont think the government doesnt have a mandate to make cuts on such a scale. they won the election. they made the "behind closed doors" deals which have allowed them to do these things with little or no resistance. and lets face it, we now actually have a PM who was voted in by the electorate which has got to be a good thing.

"The TUC conference every September used to be one of the big set-piece events of the political calender. Union leaders wielded real power and influence. As a young industrial correspondent I was on hand to record their various threats and demands, usually beneath a headline which read something like: ‘Storm clouds gather over gale-lashed Blackpool’. Back then, the unions had the muscle to bring down governments. In the Seventies, the miners toppled Ted Heath and the kamikaze Winter of Discontent put Labour out of office for a generation. When Arthur Scargill attempted a repeat performance in 1984, staging a year-long coal strike designed to remove Mrs Thatcher, he was roundly defeated. After that, the rot set in for the TUC. The changing industrial landscape saw union membership collapse from 13.3 million in 1979 to barely half that today. By the end of the Eighties, the TUC was an irrelevant sideshow. The big beasts of the trades union world are extinct; most them long since dead, although Barmy Arthur clings to life in a sort of delusional Norma Desmond limbo. It’s his union that got small. A new generation of militants hankers for the glory days. And this week they think they see their chance. The Coalition ‘cuts’ present them with an opportunity to rattle the Government’s cage once again. There was plenty of belicose bluff and bluster coming out of the TUC conference in Manchester yesterday. Bob Crow, the neanderthal throwback in charge of the railwaymen’s union, the RMT, is in the vanguard of a campaign of threatened industrial action against reductions in public spending. As well as bringing the rail network to a standstill for the duration, he is also calling for widespread civil disobedience. He says he can see ‘Batman climbing up Number 10 and Spiderman climbing up Buckingham Palace’, as well as sit-down protests on motorways. You can always rely on Bob to bring a comic touch to the procedings, although somehow I can’t see him shinning up Big Ben, dressed as the Caped Crusader. Anyway, I thought Fathers 4 Justice had cornered the superhero market. Someone should remind him that people who play on motorways tend to get run over. That’s not to say that there isn’t a genuine prospect of disruption. In the short term, the unions may score some success in forcing the Coalition to rethink some of its more drastic proposals. With a relatively modest majority, Mrs Thatcher was reluctant to take on the unions in her first parliament. Shortly after coming to office, she agreed to implement in full the findings of a commission which awarded pay rises of up to 30 per cent for public sector workers. And she backed away from a confrontation with Scargill until she was ready for a fight on her own carefully-laid ground. But the tide of history is against the unions. Back in 1979, men such as the train drivers’ leader Ray Buckton would stand on the steps of ACAS and announce menacingly that they couldn’t hold their members back. Today, the question is whether the TUC’s leaders can take their members with them. Bob Crow has already embarked on a guerilla campaign of short, sharp strikes on the London Underground. But he’s increasingly coming up against the law of diminishing returns as resistence among his members grows and more cross the picket lines each time. Elsewhere, Unite’s campaign of strikes at British Airways has done more damage to its own members than to the airline. In this economy, no one in work is going to give up their pay packet enthusiastically for the sake of a strike which might achieve nothing. Especially when they might find they don’t have a job to go back to. It is telling that most union members these days work in the public sector. If they carry out their threat to wreak havoc, it might just give the Government the excuse it needs to cut deeper and faster. Can he count on strikers: Bob Crow needs to realise members are resisting walk outs Nor can the TUC count on the support of families facing up to the economic realities of life. Although people are worried about their personal circumstances, most accept that spending has to be cut if Britain’s monstrous budget deficit and long-term debt are to be reduced. Plenty of us are already doing it in our own household budgets. If public services are disrupted on a 1979 scale — with the dead unburied and the dustbins not emptied — there will be a backlash, not against the Government but against those responsible. (Although, in the case of dustbins, how would we tell?) My guess is that Brendan Barber, the TUC General Secretary, knows all this. Brendan was the TUC press officer when I was on the industrial beat. He lived through the Eighties and is well aware that Scargill’s suicidal, politically-motivated strike accelerated the demise of the coal industry, as well as the union movement as a whole. Industrial action, coupled with cheaper foreign competition, killed Britain’s motor industry, shipbuilding and the iron and steel industry, too. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost for ever. Who’s to say that fate couldn’t befall staff across the public sector? In theory, there’s nothing to stop the Government outsourcing, say, the entire administration of the social security system to India. Bob Crow talks about protecting the ‘most vulnerable in society’ but the real motive behind his enthusiasm for a new Winter of Discontent is, like Scargill before him, to bring down the Government. Be careful what you wish for, Bob. If Polish workers are prepared to undercut British plumbers, they can just as easily be taught to drive trains." From the Mail

no they didnt, they got the majority of the votes. hence they won. (admitedly not by a sufficient margin to govern independently)

I've just finished downloading the Koran. Would anyone like me to burn them a copy?

Belated birthday wishes!

I thought Gosling was out for a good couple of months yet? What's he doing on the training ground if he's fucked?

Only for the boats to the Farne islands (not good for motion sickness!), otherwise Bamburgh is nicer imo. But stop in Seahouses for chips. Beamish is not far to go. As for travel sickness in a kid, hmmm. Not sure really, can't see why piriton would help though. BNF says Hyoscine hydrochloride is best (trade name is Joy-rides believe it or not). Bamburgh is lovely this time of year whereas Seahouses is only good for decent fish and chips and sailing to the farne islands as Renton said! Travel sickness is a strange one. we normaly dont let the kids read anything (or watch anything if you're flash and you have a dvd player) and try not to give them too many liquids. of course the downside of that is we get a lot of "are we there yet?" but its a small price to pay if it keeps the back of your car barf free!

yes it does, also it has more fucknuts willing to kill themselves reading it as well.

Personally, i'm all for it. thoughts?.............