revolution saint

Sadly this is true. Go Tories, Facists rock! Don't forget to buy my book, "How the Daily Mail taught me to stick my head in the sand at the smallest sign of an argument and resort to shouting slogans"

I'm not really defending Jacqui Smith or her husband but as I understand it her internet connection was being paid for because she needed for it work. That's not particularly unusual. The mistake occurred because her TV deal was packaged with the internet connection. It was a mistake and it is embarassing for her but it's £30 quid. More embarassing is that MP who employed his sons to do non-existant work. For the life of me I can't remember what side of the house he was on but that's the kind of thing that should be highlighted. It's also individual error and I guess both major parties are equally guilty of having MPs who abuse the system. In answer to Stanley though - yes, it is kind of funny but then so is googling teresa may with safe search turned off.

I'm not so sure the tories will but you never know. I'll be willing to bet that labour and the tories fight the next election with identical manifestos that concentrate on improving services, reducing taxes and making rabbits appear from hats. Whoever gets in will pander to focus groups and concentrate on the job in hand which incidentally is not running the country but making sure they win the next election.

It was Jacqui Smith's husband, it was a mistake, it's been (or is being paid) back. It's hardly cash for questions is it?

To be fair that's the ethos of every mainstream political party - they just argue over how much money and who they take it from. If you're going to call new labour communist then you could just as easily refer to the conservative party as facists. Of course they're not but in a just as tenous link as yours you could argue that they lean that way due their last election campaign focusing on immigration. Obviously it's a laughable suggestion that the conservatives are facists but so is the idea that new labour (or even old labour) are communists.

Why do people assume that being rich and having socialist leanings are mutually exclusive? If you've made a bit but believe in a society where the rich pay more so that the gap in inequality is narrower then why does that make you a hypocrite? You'd be arguing that everyone who earns over a certain amount should pay more - it doesn't mean just individuals who feel so inclined. I don't want to get involved in a debate over whether socialism is a good idea or not - that's irrelevant. Just interested to see why anyone who is rich and a lefty is branded a hypocrite.

In what way has it been 10 years of socialism? Has there been any plans for nationalisation? (forget the banks that was forced by the collapse of the free market and is temporary), has equality of outcome replace equality of opportunity? In what way since 1997 have we had socialism? You can argue poor government if you like but one thing it isn't is socialism.

Well OK with the dividend part but just taking on debt without guarantee? If we (the taxpayer) are underwriting this debt then isn't it fair we get something back? Can you imagine the fall out if it failed? It's a good idea that we take on the debt but you seem to be suggesting we just take their debt. Apologies if I've got that wrong. A lot of people bashing Brown at the moment have said that bailing out the banks has achieved nothing - I can't see the public going with a plan to give them more with nothing in return.

You're contradicting yourself a bit there. On the one hand you say that letting bankers oversee themselves is asking for trouble and on the other you say we should just take their debt for ten years and let them get on with it. As I understand one of the conditions for taking the debt is making sure that credit is freed up and the economy can function. That's not asking for much is it? The alternative is we take the debt and the money goes on bonuses and dividends. Let's face it bankers don't have a great track record here do they.

Great thread. A couple of points: One is that people moan about deregulation of the bank of england but at the time it was heralded as giving power back to the people who understand banking better and keeping politicians out of it. What do we want? I'm guessing the people who knock Brown now would have been happy to see less govt intervention. Two: There still seems to be no feasible alternative to spending our way out of recession. Yes, debts will mount up but the alternative is financial meltdown. Nickh proposed the govt taking on the toxic debts of banks - I'm fairly sure that's already been proposed by the govt anyway.

So Gordon backs the proposal to end discrimination when it comes to succession? Isn't heriditary rule inherently discrimatory? Regardless of ability one person will end up as head of state. I expect a lot of people will spout the money argument and frankly I don't care about that - it's about whether it's fair and a monarchy has no place in a fair, just or equal society. Bunch of tossers.

Hmmm how dare people not watch TV when and where you prescribe....please sir can you tell me what I need to watch for next week? I always thought I was one of the more of the moderate posters but frankly it seems like I'm subscribing to a site I didn't intend to at the moment.

Is it? To be fair royalty can't spell their name correctly either - the queen spells Saxe-Coburg-Gothe as "windsor" which is a bit more stupid than me.

Rich guy complains about taxes shocker. Why is it that the rich complain about taxes more than the people who are more directly affected - the working class? Every single person who says they will leave the country should do just that. Go away, stop whining and **** off. Yes that includes you Paul Daniels, Frank Bruno and Jamie Oliver. I should point out I have no idea whether Jamie Oliver has ever threatened to leave the country but I just don't like the smug mockney git.

I wish. I did celebrate her two minute silence by cutting my hedge on her funeral day though. I like to refer to the two weeks or so after she died as the weeks Britain went mental. There's a lot of similarities though with two girls losing their lives prematurely. Obviously I don't know either so whilst I can sympathise I can't really grieve for them. The major difference seems to be that when Dianna died we were all told how to feel, we had to emote on the death of a nobody and we couldn't escape. It's OK to question Jade Goody though because she was a celebrity based on vapidity rather than a celebrity through marriage. Least Jade Goody had to interview for her role in celebrity culture and keep selling papers - Dianna got away with mere hairstyles and a confused look when confronted with tricky tasks like telling the time.

In what way? She was talentless, achieved nothing and died young(ish). There seem a lot of similarities to me. The only difference is that aside from passing interest I've managed to ignore Jade Goody - I couldn't do that when Dianna died.

Murray would be a decent fight if Khan had the balls for it. Trouble is it wouldn't attract a big enough "non" boxing audience. Thaxton deserves a crack at it as well. I'd love to see Khan fight Juan Manuel Marquez or Juan Diaz though - I wouldn't give him much of a shout against either but it'd be interesting.

I agree, everyone thought Khan would take the first half of the fight anyway so it doesn't prove much. We never got to see what would happen when MAB got into the fight and were robbed of decent fight.

Well to be fair I never gave Manny a chance against DLH and Roach is a great trainer so maybe...just maybe. Barrera needs to be a totally shot fighter though and from what I've seen he's not done just yet.

Yeah, strange that Barrera should have one the 1st one and Morales the 2nd yet the judges scored it the other way. Both cracking fights and a million miles from where Khan is - outside of Frank Warren does anyone believe Khan stands a chance? has there ever been a prospect with such a weak chin? say what you like about recent hopefuls and champions but the great thing about world beaters is you don't doubt their punch resistance. Look at Calzaghe sure he slapped but he never gave you the impression he couldn't recover from a good punch. I don't have any confidence in Khan at all.

33-1 for a stoppage in the first three rounds. I think Khan will be schooled enough by Roach to avoid Barrera for the first half of the fight though. For me it's a 7th or 8th round KO for Barrera and easy money for the baby face assassin. Incidentally can anyone remember Barrera V Morales 1? Now that was a hell of a fight.

Agreed, Khan's chin will let him down. Barrera even at 34 is a class act and once he gets to the body then Khan doesn't stand a chance. I'm even going for a punt on this one - you can get 25-1 on a Barrera stoppage from rounds 4-9 and that's got to be worth it. I just can't see Khan operating at long distance for the entire fight and once he gets tagged then he's done. Course Khan will probably prove me wrong now.....Having said that looking at the Juan manuel Marquez V juan Diaz fight a couple of weeks ago shows just what a gulf in class there is between Khan and real quality.

Life in the championship has moved on from finding a millionaire - we need a billionaire. Unfortunately Will's money wouldn't make much of a dent in the debt but fair play to the fella. He clearly follows and is passionate about saints.

I'm not sure about the over 40 bit. I'm not and I'd put him in the legends stable alongside Bates, Ron Davies, Channon, Ball and Le Tissier. Of those legends I only saw Channon and Ball play briefly but that was enough, and Le Tiss a lot. I'm willing to take older fans view on board when it comes to the others as their record stands up and anyway, just because I'm not old enough to have been lucky enough to have seen them doesn't mean I can't appreciate their contribution. I hope I'm sensible enough to recognise that football didn't start with the premiership. I mean, Marsden as an icon? Really? Smashing little player and all that but no where near icon status for me. Naturally if he'd lifted the FA Cup then maybe, and that goes for Strachan too, but they didn't. On that basis I really should add Bobby Stokes to the legends so I will. In fact I'd add every single FA Cup winner to that list - they achieved the greatest moment this club has ever seen and though whilst at the time I was playing with Tonka Toys, it doesn't mean I can't appreciate their contribution now that I'm older.

I remember several last gasp escapes on the last day. Oldham (Benali day) - they needed a win and rely on other results. We played our hearts out even though there was nothing in it for us. At the start I just wanted a win but when you could see just how much it meant to their fans I have to say it's one of the few games I was happy we lost. Had a great day out and their fans were top notch. West Ham - We needed something out of the game to stay up. Naively I thought it would be a repeat of the Oldham game but no, ****ney tossers showed themselves to be the ungracious whiners that they are. Even had that pathetic pitch invasion. I've little love for that club. Wimbledon - I genuinely felt sorry for them when we sent them down. I didn't particularly like them but they (the fans) cared about their club which was more than the players they had out that day did. I guess I'd hate to be in a position where we could send someone down, or we could go down but I'd hope at the end whatever the result there would be a bit of empathy amongst the fans - it's more rewarding. Besides I've always liked Forest and they've had an even tougher time than us which is saying something.