BigWalrus

Eloquently put. Yes.

Not sure about your original question, but are you sure the Cycle to Work scheme allows you to get any accessories you want? I thought it was restricted to certain items.

Need to take wages into account, otherwise its very limited in its use.

BBC website is running a story that he would like to go into management. I suppose he's pretty experienced at watching games from the dugout, so he has a head start on his peers. Peers as in those in a similar position to him, not friends. Michael Owen has no friends.

He will be back next week.

Or has a fanny.

The band are atrocious, they do my head in.

And our home supporters, to be fair.

It was his colours that entered the debate. He brought the break on himself.

For what it's worth, I don't think the CBI really know what they want either...

The CBI didn't support austerity. What they wanted was for a rebalancing of the budget. They wanted the net spend to remain consistent, but more spend to be directed towards infrastructure at the expense of other areas. This isn't an all out appeal for increasing spending, but it's not a backing of austerity.

My thoughts, regardless of the view of any politician (to be honest they all seem to be converging into one anyway...) is that austerity is not the way forward. The traditional conservative approach is to let market forces take over and what will be will be. However, the influence that public spending and public sector money has on the private sector is massive, particularly in the north east. As a specific example, I've done some work with a couple of big car dealership chains up here and they collect data on the occupations of their customers (for general trends rather than any marketing purpose). It's staggering how large a proportion of their sales are to public sector workers. Cut the number of public sector workers up here and the car dealers sell less cars, they employ less staff, they make less profit and they pay less tax. The staff that they have to let go not only don't contribute to the tax pot any more, but they need to be paid job seekers allowance. It's a simple flow chart, and as soon as you go down the austerity route, it's a long row back. The recession may not have been initially caused by the UK, but we can't rely on being rescued by the global economy suddenly returning to growth to pick us up. Our exports simply aren't strong enough for that to happen.

Hang on - that's a big leap! Moodys haven't supported the austerity, they've just said that any growth we can manage will be limited by the slow growth globally. They haven't supported drastic cuts. The quote you have used simply demonstrates that they believe any economic growth will be limited due to global factors. Where do they suggest that the UK should stop spending and hibernate, while we wait for the rest of the world to "pick up"? Equally, the CBI haven't supported such austerity. They've conceded that the government have made their choice, and in the circumstances it's safer for businesses to be able to have certainty over the future economic policy to allow them to correctly budget, forecast and justify their investment decisions. They in no uncertain terms have supported a policy of austerity. Here's a household analogy for you. Imagine you come home from work and your lass has painted the living room a horrible dark purple colour. You don't like it, but you know that it'll take 6 or 7 coats of your favoured light beige colour to cover it properly. However, you can't be arsed with 6-7 coats as it's a right ball-ache. You also have other rooms in that need painting (such as the kitchen, which has a manky layer of grease all over the ceiling), so didn't want to put them on hold. So instead, you reluctantly accept it as it would be more expensive to try to correct it. Your lass is the government. You are the CBI. Does that put their quote into context?

That's a typically non-committal quote from the CBI. They don't say that they agree with the approach that's been taken, only that they consider it silly to drastically change it now. Good business is built on stability and consistency - unpredictable government policy is the last thing we need.

No I don't accept that, in fact I don't think I've disagreed with something more in my entire life. The UK and the eurozone economies are intrinsically linked. There are thousands of businesses that are based in the UK and operate in the eurozone and vice versa. We are their customers more than they are ours - we have an overall trade deficit and have done for many years. This isn't a problem, but something that must be understood. We are reliant on eurozone imports for so much of our day to day output that we can't afford to just wait for it to pick up. How exactly does the eurozone just "pick up"? Where have I mentioned Ed Balls? I'm not arguing Conservatives vs Labour, I'm arguing that the economy is very different from a household. A household is a very isolated arrangement with a very specific, predictable income and a very specific, predictable set of costs. An economy is subject to a whole host of internal and external factors which range from vaguely controllable to completely uncontrollable. They're vastly, vastly different! Borrowing at a household level is also very predictable. You take out a loan and pay back a set amount each month, perhaps subject to a variable interest rate. You know when it's due to be fully repaid and you know what it's secured on. Borrowing at a macro level influences so many other areas of the economy, such as exchange rates (what? something the UK does could influence the eurozone??), inflation, trade deficit levels, house prices, foreign investment, pension valuations, employment levels, etc etc etc. Without this basic understanding of the fundamental difference between a household and the entire UK economy, it's impossible to really take your argument seriously.

I've always wondered if cave men danced, and how they danced.

I often have to sit on my own cock, just to stop it escaping.

He's been sitting on the bench for £25k a week or something though. Fair play to him though. Like you said, we've been lucky to have such an able stand in.

I understand your logic, CT, but the economy is very different from a family or household. Take the line, "eventually come out the other side in a healthy position to take advantage when things pick up." for instance. How does this healthy position come about? In order to get an economy growing again, you need to have businesses investing, people in employment, spending money. If countries around the eurozone just sit tight and wait, they'll all look at each other in 5 years time and realise that someone needs to make the first move. In a household situation, there will generally always be someone who is better off than you and someone who is worse off, so sitting tight is a natural and rational reaction. At macro level though, cutting back is suicidal as it only serves to promote a downward spiral of negative growth. It's not an easy concept to grasp, but you need to clearly differentiate between a household and a national economy.

Nice. Came out of nowhere, that one.

McManaman, he is a bastard McManaman, he is a cunt McManaman, he is a bastard, a bastard, a bastard, a dirty cheating cunt Will that do?

As in...sexually?

He hasn't got a knackered spine. He has broken two bones in his back. The injury will stop him playing football, but non-strenuous activity like sitting down and watching a match will be fine. It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't play for us again, but having some broken bones in your back doesn't mean you suddenly turn into Stephen Hawking.