Hamilton Saint

It's well-known that Bush and his crew had already decided that they wanted to get rid of Hussein (whose regime he included in the so-called "axis of evil"). The attacks on New York and The Pentagon gave them the pretext they needed. The various reasons provided (WMD, "regime change", expansion of democracy in the ME) were justifications for a decision already made.

Well ... it's obviously not a random exercise, or based merely on a subjective view. They must have used some sort of rating method.

And doesn't he keep saying "Bilakowski"?

Thanks for that! Well, that makes me another Nelson Mandela. P.S. Bizarre to see that Gordon Brown sits further to the right than Stephen Harper. Hard to believe!

I am a free man. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! My life is my own.

I saw a Nikon Coolpix point-and-shoot camera last week that came in a package deal with a 4 GB memory card, rechargable lithium battery, and a soft carrying case. All for about $180 Cdn (about 90 pounds). A very good deal, I think. Presumably, you could find similar deals on your side of the pond.

Is there a graph that I missed showing the position of various well-know political figures?

If you check out the US Presidential election candidates of 2008 on the website offering this political-leaning test, it's interesting to see that Barack Obama (labelled a rabid communist by the ultra right-wing in the US) actually appears in the right-wing/authoritarian quadrant. Tells you a lot about the US. [i'm closest in political attitude there to Ralph Nader - which I'm happy to see!] Furthermore, New Labour of 2008 are firmly ensconced in the right-wing/authoritarian quadrant - worryingly close to the Conservatives. Only the Greens are in the left/libertarian quadrant.

Interesting test. I came out closest to Bungle (-6.25 left and -5.33 libertarian).

He could have been carrying a knife.

There is nothing in the rules of the competition (posted on the FL's website) that mentions away goals. "14.4 In the event of scores being level: - 14.4.1 at the end of ninety minutes’ play in all rounds apart from the Final; and 14.4.2 after the conclusion of the two legs in each Area Final, the winner shall be determined by the taking of kicks from the penalty mark in accordance with the Laws of Association Football." It seems to me, then, that the winner of the two-tie area final is based on aggregate score after the two matches.

4-5-1 or 4-4-2? If 4-4-2, who will partner Lambert?

The team is: Bart James Trotman Perry Harding Waigo Mellis Hammond Schneiderlin Lallana Lambert

I know what you mean about Ron Howard, but Frost Nixon is still worth a look!

1) You didn't read the second quote from The Toronto Star? 2) Contract bargaining, like most political situations, has always been an adversarial process. That's the way the system has evolved. Ultimately, it's a self-interested process on both sides.You're bound to get hyperbole as both side puts its position in the best light. It's primarily rhetoric and propaganda; it's unrealistic to expect it to be completely honest and rational. Meanwhile, I'm impressed by your amazing frigidity out there. It's not the sort of temperature record we'd care to emulate. Right now, it's +1 degrees C here!

I'd rather not!

From The Globe and Mail: "Take the case of Heinrich Kieber. The 43-year-old computer technician was arrested and convicted in 2002 of stealing highly classified bank records of heavy hitters who had stashed their cash inside the tax-free confines of Lichtenstein's LGT Group bank. Kieber did not go straight to jail. Instead, he collected about €5 million—and a free pass into a witness protection program—for dishing the data to German authorities, helping them figure out which of their citizens' tax records might be worth a second look. Now, other authorities are lining up, presumably with chequebooks in hand, to get a glimpse of the other 1,400 names on the list (among them, apparently, 100 Canadians)." From The Toronto Star: "Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Canada's minister of national revenue, says he has a list of more than 100 names of people who allegedly used the trading arm of the nation's top bank, the Royal Bank of Canada, to set up offshore tax havens in the European principality of Liechtenstein." That's over a hundred already - my comment based on an estimation that that'll turn out to be a couple of hundred at least (given that lots will still be hidden for a while yet).

Nurses have a "cushy" job? You really think so? I don't know about the UK, but here in Ontario nursing is a difficult job. It is very demanding physically (10 stone women having to lift and shift 20 stone men), and most wards are chronically understaffed because of continuing cutbacks. Nurses are often assaulted by their patients (bitten, punched and kicked), harangued by the patients' family members, who are upset at the lack of attention their loved ones are getting (sometimes that concern is justified - but that's the price paid for understaffing wards). I would be surprised if conditions were not quite similar in the UK.

I watched Frost Nixon last night. Having lived through that period, and followed the Nixon administration and the whole long-drawn-out Watergate thing, I found this film very interesting. Back then, I hated Nixon and I found David Frost smarmy and superficial (although I watched his American-based talk-show because he had so many fascinating guests on, and let them do their thing at length). But this film is even-handed. They are both given a fair shake in showing some of their strengths, as well as having their weaknesses presented critically. As a film, it's interesting to see how it succeeds in creating momentum and drama about rather boring people and a fairly mundane subject - a series of television interviews conducted by Frost a couple of years after Nixon resigned because of the Watergate scandal. Michael Sheen is very good as Frost and Frank Langella is excellent as Nixon. David Frost's girlfriend of the time is played by Rebecca Hall (Frost should have been so lucky!). She is luscious. I enjoyed the film. I don't think it's for everyone. But if you like politics and are interested in the period, you'll like it. Directed by Ron Howard.

People are criticising Blair (rightly) on here because he went to war for illegitimate reasons. You say he "abused his power to go to war". Correct, but you then criticise President Bush (senior) for not invading Iraq, pushing on to Baghdad and deposing Saddam Hussein. But that, too, would have been illegitimate. The aim of the first Iraq war, remember, was to get Hussein out of Kuwait, not "regime change" in Iraq. Bush (senior) didn't have the guts, you say. No, that's not it - he didn't have the right. Tony Blair didn't have the right, either, But he did have the guts, didn't he? So why not admire him, then? You seem to want it both ways.

I sympathise with your need to make someone redundant. It's unpleasant. If you read what you've written again, you'll notice your bias. You refer to unionised workers as "well-paid" (is that a bad thing?) people doing "undemanding" jobs. How would you know whether or not the jobs are "undemanding"? No doubt you have some particular types of workers in mind. But it's not fair to generalise. My wife is a nurse; I am a teacher. Our jobs are very demanding and often stressful. You also characterise union members as looking for "something trivial" over which to strike. It's not like that; most strikes occur because of an impasse in the bargaining process over wages, or the threat of removing benefits gained in previous contracts ("contract stripping"). When workers do strike, they rarely get back the money they lose during their strike - so they're not going to walk out over anything "trivial". It seems to me that the anxieties and insecurities of the modern economy - especially in the private sector - leads many people to resent unfairly those who are fortunate to have a secure situation. Would those who have been made redundant feel better if others got to suffer too? Wouldn't it be better to have all workers improve their lot, rather than have the wages and working conditions of all workers decline?

Well, I have been back three times in six years (I had the dubious pleasure of seeing Saints play at Swindon this past August ), but my conversations didn't dwell too much on politics! Everyone is paying lots of tax - that's true, but my beef is the targeted attack on unions every time there is a strike (or impending strike) that is a major inconvenience. Corporate misbehaviour is not always subject to the same fear and loathing as the behaviour of the "lower orders".

Should a sports star, or movie star, or CEO of a major coprporation - people who earn millions each year - pay more in tax than an individual earning the average wage?

Slightly hyperbolic, my friend. Government taxation pays for government services. Some people are constantly pushing for lower taxes, but they want the level of service to stay the same (or even increase).

Furthermore, right-wingers are always bleating on about welfare-cheats, but never comment on tax-frauds perpetrated by the rich and powerful. Just to give one example from today's news here in Canada. An employee of the Royal Bank of Canada in B.C. has been caught helping hundreds of people establish tax-havens with secretive Lichenstein banks. They have defrauded the taxpayers of millions of dollars of tax. Conservative governments often focus on welfare cheats, too, but do all they can to cut taxes to individuals and corporations - even whilst running up huge budget deficits and adding large amounts to the national debt. (Cf. Mr. George W. Bush)