Renton

It's a good job you aren't German in any case.

Well the majority of the country backed the tories for 3 long terms, even after the miners strike. Bastard this democracy lark for the dyed in the wool socialists. They never got 50% in a General Election, did they? Or hardly any support in the North, Scotland, or Wales.

So you'd want the benefits of Europe without actually contributing to the club. I see. What has the EU ever done for us? - 50 things that are to our advantage - from the Independent. There's a reason even the tories don't want us out of the EU, the benefits far offset the costs. First of all I did not say I wanted the benefits of Europe, my question was more WHAT ARE the benefits of Europe. As for your list I got as far as number 10 and couldnt really see anything on there that is either relevant to today or we couldnt have done without being part of the EU. As for number 3 on the list..... Are you also saying Labour governments need french people to make us make our beaches cleaner????? There is no reason why we couldnt just have the free trade bit. I guess like me, you also have little understanding of the real day to day benefits of being in rather than being out. Its not a particular slight on you btw, its just a fact of we do take a lotta shit for granted without stopping to think about it. You seem to want the benefits of the single market without actually being in the single market? How does that work then? The Independent article was a list of extra benefits above and beyond being part of the single market (with some tongue in cheek examples - see point 50). You can't just opt in for the good bits and opt out the bits you don't like. As one of the richest countries in the EU, we are expected to be net contibutors, and the EU has also redirected money to the provinces of the UK, which is needed unfortunately. The money we pay to be in the EU after Thatcher's rebate (one good thing she did) is peanuts compared to being alone in Europe. As I said, even Mr Cameron recognises that - I'm sure there are enough euroskeptics like yourself to make withdrawal from the EU a vote winner if it were remotely feasible. Without being in the EU. There is a big difference which it seems you dont understand No, I don't understand. The EU operates as a single trading block. How can you be part of it if, well, you're not part of it? Please enlighten me.

I could ask for clarification what you do believe but that's not really the point. I was more trying to establish how you choose what to believe and what not to, out of curiousity. I accept a lot of this is personal and/or can't be rationalised at the end of the day though.

So you'd want the benefits of Europe without actually contributing to the club. I see. What has the EU ever done for us? - 50 things that are to our advantage - from the Independent. There's a reason even the tories don't want us out of the EU, the benefits far offset the costs. First of all I did not say I wanted the benefits of Europe, my question was more WHAT ARE the benefits of Europe. As for your list I got as far as number 10 and couldnt really see anything on there that is either relevant to today or we couldnt have done without being part of the EU. As for number 3 on the list..... Are you also saying Labour governments need french people to make us make our beaches cleaner????? There is no reason why we couldnt just have the free trade bit. I guess like me, you also have little understanding of the real day to day benefits of being in rather than being out. Its not a particular slight on you btw, its just a fact of we do take a lotta shit for granted without stopping to think about it. You seem to want the benefits of the single market without actually being in the single market? How does that work then? The Independent article was a list of extra benefits above and beyond being part of the single market (with some tongue in cheek examples - see point 50). You can't just opt in for the good bits and opt out the bits you don't like. As one of the richest countries in the EU, we are expected to be net contibutors, and the EU has also redirected money to the provinces of the UK, which is needed unfortunately. The money we pay to be in the EU after Thatcher's rebate (one good thing she did) is peanuts compared to being alone in Europe. As I said, even Mr Cameron recognises that - I'm sure there are enough euroskeptics like yourself to make withdrawal from the EU a vote winner if it were remotely feasible.

Well no, you're not going to convince me of anything when you seem to have either completely ignored, or cannot answer, my perfectly reasonable question of how you select what to believe and what not to. It's perfectly possible not to have a prior agenda in science and not all science is grant funded. What do you make of the work of Newton, Einstein, and Darwin? Anyway, as I suggested to Parky, technology is really just the application of science, and it works, end of story. Science is not completely incompatible with belief in the Abrahamic God only if you decide all the particularly absurd stuff is a metaphor. Which brings us back to my question, which you won't answer........... Well you either believe in God or you don't, quite simple really. I would add that whilst I do, I also don't have much faith in organised religion, which is in essence the industrialisation of faith for profit IMO. The scientists you mention are from the era before science became a truly big business, let alone the corporate monster it is today, when the quest for knowledge was more "pure" for want of a better word. Just look at some of the BIG science subjects, they are in fact just theories, not proven in fact, Big bang, Dark matter etc. There's a lot of science done to support these theories, but where's the contra-science to disprove them??. There isn't any, because once a theory gathers pace the research grants and kudos come pouring in. Best thing any scientist could come up with is a theory that sounds fucking great, could be possible, but is unprovable in fact, becasue the striving for that fact is what makes science the money machine it is. Dark matter and Big Bang, being a cases in point. As an analogy to what I'm trying to say. I'm an IT project manager, when I get into a project test phase, I don't want my test teams to tell me it works (if everyone has done their jobs right of course it fucking works!!), I want them to tell be it doesn't, I want them to try and break every single important element of the functionality, I don't want to know what's good about it, I want to know what's bad and how bad. Because when they can't, job's a good'un. I won't hear a word against funding the research into dark matter - its paying my daughters rent this summer I would have loved to have been bright enough to become an astrophysicist, or a particle physicist, but I'm relatively shit at maths. The dark matter and dark energy story is fascinating, about a million times more interesting than theology. I'd also suggest that despite what toonpack says CERN is a good example of pure science which has little or no political bias or motivation - its pure research for the sake of it and will add knowledge to the world.

Well no, you're not going to convince me of anything when you seem to have either completely ignored, or cannot answer, my perfectly reasonable question of how you select what to believe and what not to. It's perfectly possible not to have a prior agenda in science and not all science is grant funded. What do you make of the work of Newton, Einstein, and Darwin? Anyway, as I suggested to Parky, technology is really just the application of science, and it works, end of story. Science is not completely incompatible with belief in the Abrahamic God only if you decide all the particularly absurd stuff is a metaphor. Which brings us back to my question, which you won't answer........... Well you either believe in God or you don't, quite simple really. I would add that whilst I do, I also don't have much faith in organised religion, which is in essence the industrialisation of faith for profit IMO. The scientists you mention are from the era before science became a truly big business, let alone the corporate monster it is today, when the quest for knowledge was more "pure" for want of a better word. Just look at some of the BIG science subjects, they are in fact just theories, not proven in fact, Big bang, Dark matter etc. There's a lot of science done to support these theories, but where's the contra-science to disprove them??. There isn't any, because once a theory gathers pace the research grants and kudos come pouring in. Best thing any scientist could come up with is a theory that sounds fucking great, could be possible, but is unprovable in fact, becasue the striving for that fact is what makes science the money machine it is. Dark matter and Big Bang, being a cases in point. As an analogy to what I'm trying to say. I'm an IT project manager, when I get into a project test phase, I don't want my test teams to tell me it works (if everyone has done their jobs right of course it fucking works!!), I want them to tell be it doesn't, I want them to try and break every single important element of the functionality, I don't want to know what's good about it, I want to know what's bad and how bad. Because when they can't, job's a good'un. Aye, but again you're really talking about human and political failings, not scientific principle per se. And the point is, these theories can be tested and refuted, and gradually we get nearer and nearer the truth. That's why it's so important to me. Religion instead just has an unchanging book which is infallible and can't be tested. Instead, to reconcile the Bible with proven scientific fact, changing moral standards, and good old common sense, people such as yourself have decided that parts of the Bible are actually metaphors. What I'm interested in is how you decide which parts are and which parts aren't. For instance, non-evangelical christians now accept that the reported deluge did not flood the world, and is in fact probably inspired by an ancient localised flood of some sort (which the Bible shares with many other cultures). It's also thought by most christians that Noah didn't literally gather two of each species etc, and the human race was not almost completely extinguished (as can be proved with DNA evidence etc). Yet you're saying that you believe Noah existed and was in communication with God. Why do you accept this and not the rest? Is it because this part of the story isn't testable? Genuine question, I'm not trying to be provocative here.

Yes, it was a complete gimmick, along with his tax cuts for married couples and parents running schools. The man has no substance whatsoever.

So you'd want the benefits of Europe without actually contributing to the club. I see. What has the EU ever done for us? - 50 things that are to our advantage - from the Independent. There's a reason even the tories don't want us out of the EU, the benefits far offset the costs.

Any idea what income you'd have to have to be in group 6 or lower? That would be the median income which is probably around £20k I would guess? Interesting graph, lets look at it again in 5 years if the tories get in power.

Indeed. Clegg has lost the plot on that one. It sends out the wrong message. It's a vote loser and not what Joe Public wants to hear (because they're bigots aren't they Gordon?) Clegg floundering a bit tonight imo. In principal offering all illegals amnesty is a good idea, they come forward, we now have a list of the number of people in the country, they can be given NI numbers and they can work and be taxed however any government would fuck it up so I'm voting Lib Dem The issue is Labour abolished tracking people leaving, Lim Dem wants the amnesty so we can track them better. Personally I don't care if they know the figure as it's only a statistic, they are illegal so would come and stay regardless. Also I think the logistics of an amnesty wouldn't pan out as if 800k people come forward they will more than likely be in pockets of areas. So giving them the right to work will put a major strain on that area. Its a good suggest, but one that i dont think can work. The real problem for me is we shouldn't have an open door policy for the EU. Espcially if we concider Greece and Spains downward spiral. So you want us to withdraw from the EU then? I actually thought it a bit ironic that, imo, Brown wiped the floor with Clegg and Cameron regarding immigration tonight. Iirc it was the Conservatives that stopped 'counting people out' btw.

Well no, you're not going to convince me of anything when you seem to have either completely ignored, or cannot answer, my perfectly reasonable question of how you select what to believe and what not to. It's perfectly possible not to have a prior agenda in science and not all science is grant funded. What do you make of the work of Newton, Einstein, and Darwin? Anyway, as I suggested to Parky, technology is really just the application of science, and it works, end of story. Science is not completely incompatible with belief in the Abrahamic God only if you decide all the particularly absurd stuff is a metaphor. Which brings us back to my question, which you won't answer...........

The Sun backed out of that too apparently, presumably when they found they couldn't get the right angle out of it.

He says, typing on his computer over the internet, without a trace of irony. To be honest Parky, you've never really demonstrated you understand the principles of science.

What do you base the bolded bit on? Do you not think you might be cherrypicking bits you like or seem acceptable to you? Most stories from ancient times have, at their heart, a basis in truth. A vast flood in a (by todays standards) local area would have been seen as a world event thousnads of years ago. Rationalise that out and you can easily come to a view that it happened and why not Noah. People have premonitions all the time. Maybe it's God, maybe it's not. I personally happen to believe it is. Stands by for much ridicule from the godless, science is all crowd. You haven't really adressed the point about cherry picking though have you? Can anyone decide what is true or false on their own terms? All the nice bits of the Bible story are true but not the nasty bits, which frankly show Yahweh to be a loathsome, petty, psychopath? In a way evangelical christians are more honest really. As for Science is all, the article proves that Christians cherry pick when to use that too. As does science, depends where the £££'s are comming from You're confusing human bias with science. Good science is neutral and unbiased - that's kind of the point of it - and something I'm not sure can be claimed by a single religion. If I perform a scientific study and select only the results that prove my point, then it's a crap study, and can be shown to be so by my peers. What about religion though?

All parties are agreed that the public sector has to be cut back, and this is going to hurt. But how savage do you want those cuts to be? There's very good economic reasons that there is proportionately more public sector jobs in the provinces - can you imagine what Longbenton would cost if it were based in the South East? Cameron has already said he will slash public sectors, specifically in the North East. He says they can be replaced by private sector jobs. But how? Where is this investment going to come from? He'll be a disaster for the North East, that is a practically a given. Of course, it was only a couple of years ago that a tory think tank said we should abandon Northern cities and all move to Cambridge, echoing what that odious turd of a man Tebbit said a decade or so earlier. Nothing's changed.

When have I said let the banking industry go bust? I said transfer the important assets to a national bank, the only people to suffer would be shareholders and employees. I have sympathy for the lower level employees, but how does it differ from Rover? Setting up a national bank would create jobs. My point was you have waved the massive debt off as just "one of those things". If you believe Gordon will make a profit on Northern Rock then where are you placing the debt? You think we should all the banks should have been merged into one National Bank? Sorry, you'll have to run that by me how that would work, it sounds more like a communist manifesto than a tory one. Here's a link to an interesting article by the Times btw, about how the government deftly saved all the major banks in the UK other than Barclays (who were bailed by Middle Eastern investors) - it wasn't just a case of the NR folding, the banks were toppling like dominoes. Needless to say the artcle was written before Murdoch ordered the editor to turn on Labour. How does our investment into the banks impact on our deficit? Honestly I don't know the answer to that one but I'd assume once they get back into profit (which is beginning to happen) the treasury will benefit nicely thank you very much. I'm no economist like but somehow I doubt you are either.

I don't think even the Conservatives would agree with you now that it was a good idea to let our entire banking industry go bust Phil. The country would have gone into meltdown - have you actually thought the implications through of even a small high street bank like NR going to the wall? Incredible. Anyway, the government will also recoup most if not all the money spent on the banks, and may even make a tidy profit. Thank God that Phil or Dave weren't in charge two years ago.

What do you base the bolded bit on? Do you not think you might be cherrypicking bits you like or seem acceptable to you? Most stories from ancient times have, at their heart, a basis in truth. A vast flood in a (by todays standards) local area would have been seen as a world event thousnads of years ago. Rationalise that out and you can easily come to a view that it happened and why not Noah. People have premonitions all the time. Maybe it's God, maybe it's not. I personally happen to believe it is. Stands by for much ridicule from the godless, science is all crowd. You haven't really adressed the point about cherry picking though have you? Can anyone decide what is true or false on their own terms? All the nice bits of the Bible story are true but not the nasty bits, which frankly show Yahweh to be a loathsome, petty, psychopath? In a way evangelical christians are more honest really. As for Science is all, the article proves that Christians cherry pick when to use that too.

Well, compared to Cameron he pretty much is actually. What would have happened if Cameron and Osbourne had let the banks collapse? Sorry, I should have clarified: the line needs to be that it's a bit rich positioning yourself as the great rescuer when you were complicit in creating the problem and exposing the country to the global crisis to a massive extent in the first place. True, but what's done is done now, and we are hardly unique in this aspect. I want to back the best man to get us out of the mess, and think Brown is still best qualified to do it. Daftest thing I've ever read. Brown got us into this mess by piss poor planning. We had the biggest economic boom in ages and rather paying off our debt and saving for future issues like the pension time bomb or banking collapse like the Australia did, he wasted it while making arrogant claims (e.g. 'end of boom and bust' etc...). We are in £848.5 billion debt (Feb 2010) and have to pay 42 Billion a year to service it. What baffles me is Gordon has the cheek to attack the Conservatives aim to cut 6 billion spending to try and reduce it, while claiming he will reduce it by half in four years. Wake up and smell the coffee mate, even Shepard would agree borrowing 14 billion a month is wrong. The conservatives have laid out their plan to regulate the banking sector and force them to lend, which will stimulate SME and grow the economy. Super Gordon wants to piss away more money on public services which has created an unsustainable reliance on the public sector. If you want the country to stand any chance vote conservative, if you want to work until you die and live in a crappy over crowed care home with a worthless pension, stick with Gordon - the debt is out of control. The debt was perfectly manageable until the ripple effect from the sub prime crisis in the US fucked up just about every economy in the Western world. We are not alone in this and would have been completely fucked if we had followed the tory plans during the peak of the crisis. And now its the same old story from the Eton brigade - tax relief for the super rich and specific plans to fuck the North East over as Cameron admitted last week. As for tax relief for married couples, parents setting up new schools etc, what a joke. Amateur stuff which hasn't been properly thought out. Your last sentence reeks of scaremongering, or perhaps you've just not had a very good time of it of late. For me personally I recognise all the good things Labour have done whilst in power - massive improvements to the NHS, to schools, minimum wage, working tax credits, winter heating allowance for the elderly, etc, etc. The fact that the tories in opposition objected to most of these things tells its own story. In the last decade since Labour has been in power our citiy centres have also been virtually rebuilt (for the better in general). We've had genuinely good times and now are suffering the hangover of a global recession, but it is NOTHING compared to Thatcher under the 80s.

Five Live has just described how an anonymous tech person at the BBC left a microphone on a particularly demanding and obnoxious diva when she went to the toilet. Apparently the resulting noises were eye watering.

Don't these Mediterranean types live to be 150 as well? On account they barely do any work during their lives probably.

Hmmmm, now where exactly could these Eastern Europeans be coming from? 'Flocking' is quite an unusual word to use, any chance it could have been misheard? The comment itself wasn't bigotted, but it did remind me of 'I'm not racist but....'. It's likely a speech about how they're taking our jobs etc was likely to follow had she been left to go on - I reckon that's what Brown thought anyway. Pretty much a non-event blown up out of all proportion at the end of the day. People complain about politicians being too guarded, boring, and not saying what they think. Well, this illustrates why. Anyway, the election should be about policies rather than personalities, and this is where Labour are clear winners imo, I hope that comes out tonight. Actually, I reckon he was feeling sorry for himself and blowing the thing out of all proportion to the aide or whoever it was he was talking to in the car. In the way her question wasn't bigotted, the encounter wasn't a 'disaster'. As for the lady herself, I think she was just trying to express as many concerns as possible, including immigration (which she only briefly touched on) in the short, chance of a lifetime, opportunity she had to question the PM. The daft part is he handled it all pretty well. Shame it overshadows the real issues but he only has himself to blame for that. Yeah, I thought he might be blowing off steam to his aides as well. It's something most of us do all the time if we're honest I reckon - I was a 'bit negative' benind some GPs' backs following a training session yesterday, difference was I wasn't wired up (and I'm also not the PM in an election campaign!).

Hmmmm, now where exactly could these Eastern Europeans be coming from? 'Flocking' is quite an unusual word to use, any chance it could have been misheard? The comment itself wasn't bigotted, but it did remind me of 'I'm not racist but....'. It's likely a speech about how they're taking our jobs etc was likely to follow had she been left to go on - I reckon that's what Brown thought anyway. Pretty much a non-event blown up out of all proportion at the end of the day. People complain about politicians being too guarded, boring, and not saying what they think. Well, this illustrates why. Anyway, the election should be about policies rather than personalities, and this is where Labour are clear winners imo, I hope that comes out tonight.

I know. They should get their own fucking thread.