Christmas Tree

Cyber security seems to be the big new thing. No chance of getting in on that gig? The sheer brass neck on CT. It wasn't a piss take it was a serious question! PP mentions now and again about trips to London so he is obviously higher up the chain than the average IT person. The Government announced yesterday about all the money they will be chucking at cyber terrorism. Not only does it sound like a secure gig to get into I would also think it could be very interesting. Your lack of self awareness is quite astonishing Yawn

Cyber security seems to be the big new thing. No chance of getting in on that gig? The sheer brass neck on CT. It wasn't a piss take it was a serious question! PP mentions now and again about trips to London so he is obviously higher up the chain than the average IT person. The Government announced yesterday about all the money they will be chucking at cyber terrorism. Not only does it sound like a secure gig to get into I would also think it could be very interesting.

Cyber security seems to be the big new thing. No chance of getting in on that gig?

No.

Scottish Herald, reporting on Prime Minister Browns visit to his local ship builders in Scotland..... Just to avoid doubt. What's that got to do with the aircraft carriers again? Because Brown has used the same termination clauses to avoid the incoming government being able to cancel the orders. You've got it the wrong way round.....it would be BAE who insisted on the clauses being inserted. They are the closest thing to a nationalised industry we have left. A little known fact is that any contract they take on for any foreign government is guaranteed by the British taxpayer. We stump up the money if the contract tender price is exceeded beyond a certain level.And we keep on paying...and on and on. And you can imagine how easy it is to make a contract hit that magic point?....or if a government doesn't want a certain product after all: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbys...-ship-deal.html key phrase here: Its matterless really. Usually its the customer spending billions who has the clout to say fuck off to terms they are not happy with. You can take the view that he was either extremely weak in the bargaining process or cynical enough to make the deal unbreakable for his local friends and voters. Either way he has hamstrung the current government into being unable to cancel the order. Personally, given the fact he stood at the dockyards and spoke about the tories stealing tripod for plymouth and making their contracts unbreakable, I think he knew exactly what he had agreed too which is why he brought it up. Negligent either way tbf,

Having one of those random moments this afternoon when one thing leads to another and.... I started reflecting on the different goal celebrations at matches amongst my mates. In particular there is one lad who just stands up and starts clapping very civilised, while myself and another lad tend to leap all over embracing each other and all that shit until the moment passes and we break out into claps, chants and fists in the air. What do you lot do when we score.

Helps the public spending bill tho

Must say another stellar performance by Cameron. Red Ed was simply shocking today and looked and sounded like a first year uni student. Mumbled everything and had Harmen sitting next to him contorting her face in order to try and make head nor tail of what he was saying. Very very weak.

Scottish Herald, reporting on Prime Minister Browns visit to his local ship builders in Scotland..... Just to avoid doubt. What's that got to do with the aircraft carriers again? Because Brown has used the same termination clauses to avoid the incoming government being able to cancel the orders. Have you got a link to the present day termination clauses for the carriers though, rather than quoting termination clauses the tories made 13 years ago? Otherwise I'm not sure of your point. Is it to say Brown is as bad as the tories were or what? My point was in agreeing with Jaw D about whether we really need two new aircraft carriers. The point being, as reported all week on the beeb etc, that even though the government would have liked to cancel one or both of them, the decision has being taken out of their hands because the termination clause Brown has agreed in the contract make the cost of getting out of it too high. So high infact that it seems as though we are trying to flog one of them to some other country before they are even finished. The herald article was just using Browns own words to show where he got the idea from. Overall a shitty trick by him and the tories 13 years earlier. Politics though. I reckon you googled that and misread it tbh, thinking it was being critical of Brown, and not the conservatives. I'm sure neither of us has any idea how much money it should cost to reasonably terminate a massive contract like an aircraft carrier (quite different to an ongoing service contract I'd add), but I'd say two things. - Scrapping one or both carriers was seen as a viable option until very recently - Fox's involvement at play here? - To suggest that Brown deliberately negotiated poor termination clauses to damage the next government sounds ludicrous to me. I'd quite like to see something to back this up, even if it's just a published opinion. What happened to not arguing for the sake of it I used the quote to back up what Brown has done and where he got the idea. Suprised you missed that unless your just after a fight. Wouldn't it be easier just to directly post a link that shows Brown was responsible for unreasonable termination clauses, rather than this convoluted argument based on pure supposition though? Do you stand by your arguement that it is Labour's fault we are getting two aircraft carriers, and if you do, will you back it up? Or alternatively it would be alright to admit you made a mistake. Dont really understand your second point???? Anyway, David Cameron house of commons today advises parliament that due to the termination terms agreed by Brown, it is cheaper to go ahead with the order than to cancel it. Has written proof from BAE. Sure he'll send you a link if you want it.

Scottish Herald, reporting on Prime Minister Browns visit to his local ship builders in Scotland..... Just to avoid doubt. What's that got to do with the aircraft carriers again? Because Brown has used the same termination clauses to avoid the incoming government being able to cancel the orders. Have you got a link to the present day termination clauses for the carriers though, rather than quoting termination clauses the tories made 13 years ago? Otherwise I'm not sure of your point. Is it to say Brown is as bad as the tories were or what? My point was in agreeing with Jaw D about whether we really need two new aircraft carriers. The point being, as reported all week on the beeb etc, that even though the government would have liked to cancel one or both of them, the decision has being taken out of their hands because the termination clause Brown has agreed in the contract make the cost of getting out of it too high. So high infact that it seems as though we are trying to flog one of them to some other country before they are even finished. The herald article was just using Browns own words to show where he got the idea from. Overall a shitty trick by him and the tories 13 years earlier. Politics though. I reckon you googled that and misread it tbh, thinking it was being critical of Brown, and not the conservatives. I'm sure neither of us has any idea how much money it should cost to reasonably terminate a massive contract like an aircraft carrier (quite different to an ongoing service contract I'd add), but I'd say two things. - Scrapping one or both carriers was seen as a viable option until very recently - Fox's involvement at play here? - To suggest that Brown deliberately negotiated poor termination clauses to damage the next government sounds ludicrous to me. I'd quite like to see something to back this up, even if it's just a published opinion. What happened to not arguing for the sake of it I used the quote to back up what Brown has done and where he got the idea. Suprised you missed that unless your just after a fight.

By the way Cameron making his speech to the commons on the defense review at 3.30pm for anyone who likes watching this sort of thing. One thing that does piss me off (even though I know its politics), Im sure this lot said they would get back to announcements being made in the commons and not leaked and briefed in the days leading upto....

Scottish Herald, reporting on Prime Minister Browns visit to his local ship builders in Scotland..... Just to avoid doubt. Doesnt that mean the opposite of what you think it means ??? Wouldnt be the first time? I think it neans the Tories shafted the incoming Labour government by agreeing to high cancellation charges so that the trident deal stayed with Plymouth. Brown has done the same with the aircraft deal so that the current government cant cancel it either. If im misunderstanding that you will have to be more specific.

Scottish Herald, reporting on Prime Minister Browns visit to his local ship builders in Scotland..... Just to avoid doubt. What's that got to do with the aircraft carriers again? Because Brown has used the same termination clauses to avoid the incoming government being able to cancel the orders. Have you got a link to the present day termination clauses for the carriers though, rather than quoting termination clauses the tories made 13 years ago? Otherwise I'm not sure of your point. Is it to say Brown is as bad as the tories were or what? My point was in agreeing with Jaw D about whether we really need two new aircraft carriers. The point being, as reported all week on the beeb etc, that even though the government would have liked to cancel one or both of them, the decision has being taken out of their hands because the termination clause Brown has agreed in the contract make the cost of getting out of it too high. So high infact that it seems as though we are trying to flog one of them to some other country before they are even finished. The herald article was just using Browns own words to show where he got the idea from. Overall a shitty trick by him and the tories 13 years earlier. Politics though.

The point he was making, which you seemed not have picked up on, is that the general public dont particularly connect the changes in public services with increased or decreased government spending. The article was mainly setting out the battlefield for the next 4 years and the dangerous line Labour have to walk. Dont know if you noticed there change in policy yesterday by emphasising less cuts and more tax rises. They changed the ratio quite a bit and as the writer bullets, this could lead to a situation, if they keep the policy as it is, of Labour heading into the next election promising tax rises whilst the Tories promise tax cuts. It is also pretty true that the winter of discontent stigma also stuck with Labour through a lot of election campaigns and that one of Labours biggest challenges is convincing the general public (who just chucked them out) that it was mainly down to the banking crisis and not wasteful overspending and mis management. (The governments line). I thought it was a very interesting piece but hey ho. The cuts are on an unprecedented scale this time round and are being anounced all at once more or less - tomorrow. Quite different to previous times. Also the impact of these cuts - the time of discontent - will be mostly felt when we're well into this government. Add into this Cameron will presumably lack a popular war and is not facing an unelectable alternative, and that Lib Dems are haemorraging to Labour, and things don't look bad for Labour - in my opinion. A lot may change though. The point about tax cuts versus service cuts is interesting, but I think I am right in saying we are taxed a lot less than in the 1980s so may be less of an issue. Not sure, but I think people would be more willing to stomach a tax rise today if it meant keeping essential services. As it happens, there was an interesting article in the Independent on Sunday about the state of America's infrastructure that is literally in a state of collapse if they don't spend a trillion dollars on it, which they can't afford. Scarey times ahead over the pond. I agree, which is partly why I take some comfort from the desire in this country to try and sort out the underlying problems as well as the deficit. If the Americans try the sort of austerity measure being undertaken here or the changes to welfare etc then I think it will well and truly kick off. Personally I think as a country we are better suited in many ways to undertake this and come out of the other side. Helps having a great PM

The point he was making, which you seemed not have picked up on, is that the general public dont particularly connect the changes in public services with increased or decreased government spending. The article was mainly setting out the battlefield for the next 4 years and the dangerous line Labour have to walk. Dont know if you noticed there change in policy yesterday by emphasising less cuts and more tax rises. They changed the ratio quite a bit and as the writer bullets, this could lead to a situation, if they keep the policy as it is, of Labour heading into the next election promising tax rises whilst the Tories promise tax cuts. It is also pretty true that the winter of discontent stigma also stuck with Labour through a lot of election campaigns and that one of Labours biggest challenges is convincing the general public (who just chucked them out) that it was mainly down to the banking crisis and not wasteful overspending and mis management. (The governments line). I thought it was a very interesting piece but hey ho. The cuts are on an unprecedented scale this time round and are being anounced all at once more or less - tomorrow. Quite different to previous times. Also the impact of these cuts - the time of discontent - will be mostly felt when we're well into this government. Add into this Cameron will presumably lack a popular war and is not facing an unelectable alternative, and that Lib Dems are haemorraging to Labour, and things don't look bad for Labour - in my opinion. A lot may change though. The point about tax cuts versus service cuts is interesting, but I think I am right in saying we are taxed a lot less than in the 1980s so may be less of an issue. Not sure, but I think people would be more willing to stomach a tax rise today if it meant keeping essential services. As it happens, there was an interesting article in the Independent on Sunday about the state of America's infrastructure that is literally in a state of collapse if they don't spend a trillion dollars on it, which they can't afford. Scarey times ahead over the pond. This is one of those lovely lines that people say to pollsters or in polite company but very rarely actually mean.

Scottish Herald, reporting on Prime Minister Browns visit to his local ship builders in Scotland..... Just to avoid doubt. What's that got to do with the aircraft carriers again? Because Brown has used the same termination clauses to avoid the incoming government being able to cancel the orders.

The point he was making, which you seemed not have picked up on, is that the general public dont particularly connect the changes in public services with increased or decreased government spending. The article was mainly setting out the battlefield for the next 4 years and the dangerous line Labour have to walk. Dont know if you noticed there change in policy yesterday by emphasising less cuts and more tax rises. They changed the ratio quite a bit and as the writer bullets, this could lead to a situation, if they keep the policy as it is, of Labour heading into the next election promising tax rises whilst the Tories promise tax cuts. It is also pretty true that the winter of discontent stigma also stuck with Labour through a lot of election campaigns and that one of Labours biggest challenges is convincing the general public (who just chucked them out) that it was mainly down to the banking crisis and not wasteful overspending and mis management. (The governments line). I thought it was a very interesting piece but hey ho.

Scottish Herald, reporting on Prime Minister Browns visit to his local ship builders in Scotland..... Just to avoid doubt.

Excellent spot on article regarding the current political climate. (From the Independant so not sure if they are independant or have a leaning one way or the other). The dangers that stalk Johnson How can Labour win an election proposing tax rises against Conservatives arguing for tax cuts? They need an answer, and then credible and popular policies to flesh it out

Same here

Indeed a big problem. Nothing wrong with cutting social housing. The problem, once again is that it's abused by the masses. I remember even 20 years ago when I got my first flat. I was told it went on a points system. If I got a letter from a parent saying I was being thrown out and would be homeless I would be boosted to the top of the list. Simple as that. How does the council pick those in genuine need over those on the fiddle? As for the navy cuts. Do we really need one or two new carriers? Really need? As for the whole argument, I don't see why some people assume that if you vote for one party you believe in all of their policies? When I voted I considered a number of parties based on their stance on some key things. I didn't support one party 100% but in the end I voted conservative. Equally I don't vote based on who I voted for last time or what my family vote for historically (which I find astounding) or based on what a government done 20 years ago (equally astounding). I'm interested in today, tomorrow, next year. Not what happened decades ago. In the past Ive voted labour & lib dem. It just happened that this time around conservative most represented my views. No we dont but Brown totally fucked over the incoming government by making sure it would cost billions to get out of the contract. The cancellation clause is that bad that we are having to pay for it to be made and then trying to flog it off to someone else. With regard to voting for a party etc, couldnt agree more and its interesting to note that a lot of the policy formulation going on at the moment is getting a lot of cross party support rather than just the usual political football. This should lead to some real improvements getting through. Ofcourse there will be lots of hoo ha over the next few days when the cuts are announced tomorrow.

How the Arses go so quickly

Now I know you're a WUM. ofcourse it is daft lad. They could have easy taken the easy path, done a few cuts and left us with the same ol same old. However they are actually, not often in polotics, trying to do things differently and get our country back on its feet again. Everyone and his dog knows that welfare and pensions have needed tackling for years. This lot is having the balls to try and do something about it. Something Labour should have done over the last 13 years. Long may they continue.

Didnt know about that but it seems a decent step to me. Cant see why rent needs to be subsidised for people on good money. Let them pay the going rate like most people have too. Which true colours btw? The tory blue working on welfare, supported on the whole by Labour. Or the Labour redworking on pensions reforms supported by the tory blue? And yes these fuckers are really getting stuck in clearing up the usual Labour mess.

I suppose it would work and be seen as a "benefit" so in the same way as someones benefits stop when they find work, they would be xpected to move into private rental etc when finances allowed. The plus side is that it would free council property up for those who need it, however what council estates would then become....Ghettos etc..... would be a worry. The good thing about everything that is going on is that there seems to be real brain power being put to this task rather than simply the usual tug of war on public spending between Labour and Conservative. We hopefully will end up with a government that is leaner because that is the best way rather than just a money saving exercise. Also think its good that all three parties have people working on these changes.