Joensuu

Ay, was going to say similar. "Political correctness" = "Basic common decency".

Sorry Wes, missed your response - think a match might have distracted me. I find this really interesting. You're right, essentially UKIP don't have a policy on tax, which considering tax is one of the most fundamental parts of government is really rather shocking. However, they have made the 'proposal' reasonably prominent on their website, inside their 'policies' section. One might suggest that they would love to make this proposal into a real policy, but realise it is so loopy that it would make their party look completely barking. So essentially, they've gone for this hybrid approach to making policies, put a crazy proposal in amongst your policies might well be enough to sway the rich right-wingers to your cause ["Look Tarquin, this party who hate those foreign sorts like you do, have something in their policy section about not taxing as much of your £800k salary, but only taxing you at a flat rate like you go on about when your drunk. Won't that save us a few hundred grand in tax each year if they get in?"], but of course, by keeping the proposal as unofficial, UKIP get a nice opt out if anyone points out that the numbers don't add up. You are quite right, the Lib Dems do seem to be on a hiding to nothing. I was furious with Clegg's decision to get into bed with the Tories. His only correct decision was to abstain - agree to not vote against the Tories initially so that they could form a government, and then be able to vote through Tory policies on their merit, not on some daft coalition compromise. Anyhow, I think you have me confused as being a Liberal, when I'm actually a liberal. I don't care for party, but for policy. If the Lib Dems have liberal polices I'll support them on those policies; if they adopt Tory or more Socialist policies, I'll argue against them where I feel it's appropriate to do so. So, yes, I agree, the Lib Dems do often seem to flip between populist policies, and have written policies which the wouldn't have were they in with a shot at being elected. I feel the Lib Dems will suffer massively at the next general election; then replace Clegg and start polling quite well again, in, say, 4 or 5 years time. I also feel that UKIP are doing an excellent job of stealing voters from both the Tory right, and from Labour by playing on working class immigration fears. I doubt that many liberal voters will switch to UKIP - their policies are pretty much polar opposites on most things. I personally am genuinely concerned by UKIP. They are a nasty party, with seemingly oblique policies. They have wide appeal amongst both societies richest, and poorest mainly by focusing on xenephobic rhetoric. They also have a highly charismatic leader, who will allow them to pick up far more votes than their policies justify. I have to admit I'm very concerned about UKIP - not in terms of UK politics, but in terms of the destruction they could bring if they ever gained enough power. Anything could happen.

The girls from Hayling, Waterlooville and Portsmouth all have that special Skate look to them.

Agree. I haven't heard anyone actually provide a rational argument against allowing gay marriage, 'sanctity of straight marriage' indeed! That only makes any sense if marriage is in some way considered holy or sacred, which considering it is a legal union, and open to any religion and atheists isn't true. I can only conclude that people opposed to gay marriage like poking their nose into what other people are allowed to do in their own private lives.

Personally don't think homophobia is quite the right phrase, as I'm not sure there is fear involved (just small-minded disgust). Discrimination would seem more suitable. No organisation should have a say over the lifestyle choices of individuals, unless those individuals are damaging people, possessions or places through their lifestyle choices. Do Christians feel that they are being damaged in any way by gay lifestyles? If so they should say so, and explain why. If not, why are they so worried about gay people getting married?

Good point, and I see where you're going. Guess that for me the quick swoop and kill of a bird of prey is cleaner, and something that it would be doing naturally anyhow; whereas the elongated hunt with dogs seems unnecessarily protracted and deliberately bloody. The other main difference is that I haven't heard anyone try to argue that falconry is essential pest control. If pest control is the motivation there are far more efficient methods then blowing a bugle. There is also something of an art about falconry, the birds take years to train - a bit like the relationship between horse and rider. Anyhow, in terms of fox-hunting, I prefer my pest control to be done in a cheap way with a quick, clean death, without the added 'sport' element please. I haven't yet heard a sensible argument in favour of its reintroduction.

If Civil Partnerships had the same legal rights that marriage does there would be no debate. Whatever term people wish to use for the ceremony, I firmly believe all gay or straight partnerships should legally have the same rights. The term currently used to refer to a couple who have committed to one another is 'marriage' that is used irrespective of religion. I propose that the most appropriate term to use for gay partnerships should therefore be 'marriage', and if needs be the law should be tighten to differentiate between 'holy matrimony' and marriage. The former being a type of the latter conducted by a specific religious group.

Not overly.

Who cares whether Christians (or anyone else for that matter) approve or not about an individual's lifestyle choice. Live and let live. Nobody is asking for equal rights to 'holy matrimony' - just equal rights in the law when it comes to marriage.

Yes, very graceful and highly skilled. For reference: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hunts-use-loopholes-to-carry-on-killing-512129.html

Agreed, but then that wasn't ever part of my argument was it? Straw man? The important word in this sentence is 'can'. Yes, I agree they can. Again, this wasn't my argument. I was arguing against UKIP's flat tax rate policy, under which everyone, poor or rich would pay the same rate of tax. This is a very different proposition from merely cutting higher rates of tax. Quite simply, UKIP are arguing that everyone should pay the same rate. They don't tell us what that rate is. But, common sense suggests that the rate would need to be between the current 20% basic, and 40% higher rates (would you agree to that point?). If so, that would mean that basic rate of tax would have to increase to counter a reduction in the higher rate (this I think is where we disagree? You are saying that any reduction in higher rate would actually increase tax income to the extent that the basic rate wouldn't need to increase? I feel that the UKIP tax policy can be condensed down to, "poor pay more tax, to fund tax cut for wealthy". Right, so UKIP plan to fund their tax cuts by pulling out of Europe. Hmmm, let me see, current government spending c. £720bn pa, current government income c. £612 bn (+ borrowing of c. £100bn pa to fill the spending gap). And you think that the whopping £12bn we spend on the EU each year will cover tax cuts? Sorry, but for UKIP to cut taxes at all, something rather more expensive than the EU membership has to give. Will it be the NHS? (not according to UKIP - they only want to tinker with the Dept of Heath (who cost c. £10bn in total to run vs the NHS's c. £120bn annual cost)) Will it be the MoD? (again, no, UKIP want to increase spending here (will this extra money come from 'cutting the EU too?)). Education then? (Possibly, UKIP aren't clear on whether their policies will cost or save money in education). Lets be honest, the UKIP numbers don't add up. They are promising everything that their core voters want to hear, without having to think about how it could possibly be financed. Perhaps the Lib Dems are actually considering how much money there really is available to spend, and not just making up populist rhetoric that doesn't add up.

Honestly can't see much merit to the UKIP policy set. But if they did ever carry out all of that, the UK would be in a proper mess.

QUOTE=Wade Garrett;1682312]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22396690 Oddly, I find myself agreeing with quite a few of their beliefs. Their education policy has some merit to it. Their health policy might work, but stands a good chance of making a mess of the NHS. Their tax policy is outrageous, a flat rate of tax would see the gap between rich and poor increase dramatically, while either overall government tax income would be massively reduced (meaning even more cuts to public services), or the flat rate would have to e higher than the bar rate is currently (perhaps everyone paying, say 30% might just work, hardly fair on the majority of people though). But hang on, in the section called the economy UKIP are proposing tax cuts. Where does this money come from? Or do they actually mean tax cuts for everyone earning £50k + (with the richest saving the most), paid for by the masses? Personally feel that their views on Europe, gay marriage, defence, and the environment are completely wrong. Pubs are much better since smoking was banned, and the fox hunting ban should IMO be extended to include hunting with birds of prey.

Likewise, I agree with Duncan, but some posters on here hailed it as a club dictat from Cortese, as it would keep our team selection secret and give us an advantage as the opposition won't know our team.

Put good packaging on an awful product and watch the suckers buy it on mass. Farage should think about getting a book about his struggle published.

Here you go: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Europe Turn out that only a few countries have taken significantly less proportionally than us, 11% of current population is about average.

Likewise, felt guilty for not spoiling my ballot instead, but not so easy to take a reasonably pointless political stance when you have to tuck the kids in. Problem I have is I would never vote Tory or Labour, and most certainly could never consider ever voting for a nasty party like UKIP. I refuse to vote Lib Dem until Clegg is replaced. Simply no sensible choice at the moment. Wish the Green party had a candidate in my area. Sent from my Lumia 800 using Board Express

Think this is a bit OTT, 'catastrophe", no, disappointing yes. Talk like this will only serve to cause Alpine to panic when Jos hasn't been replaced by mid June. Sent from my Lumia 800 using Board Express

Agree, although, I feel that the player you target has to also not be attracting interest from elsewhere. Otherwise, their current club will stall as they try to play the bidders against each other. In otherwords, you can normally only swoop early in the window for players other clubs don't want. Which or course makes finding the 'right' player very difficult 'early' in the window.

Here's an idea, having watched the team all season, seen what goes right, what goes wrong why doesnt the management bring in the RIGHT players, irrespective of when they arrive. Ideally this will be early in the window, but this ideal situation will normally result in significantly overpaying. Also, jumping in early will often bloat the squad, or cause us to miss out on better targets (i.e. shortlist of 3 Centre Backs drawn up; the least desirable is available on day one of the window, do you jump on the player on day one, or wait to see if better players can be convinced to join us?) So what do you do Alpine? Sure, if you can, you buy early and right; but this scenario is rare. So what would you prefer to compromise? The 'early' or the 'right'?

Is this a good enough reason to renue Fox and Guly's contracts?

For the record: 9th or above - absolutely delighted 12th or above - happy 15th or above - satisfied 17th or above - dissapointed 18th or below - upset Some will see that as lacking ambition, but I disagree. Progress is measured primarily on the results of the first team; but I think there are plenty of other relevent measures. For example, if we finish 14th, but win the youth FA cup, expand the academy, or release plans to add another 8000 seats to the Kingsland, I'd be more than happy with progress. Likewise I'd be upset if we finished, say 6th, having sold Staplewood, disbanded the academy and thrown the extra money on signing Joey Barton on £130k pw. Of course the first team is the real measure; but I'd rather see real progress, than the 'pompey 2008' model of throwing all the spare cash at the first team (and some), and using the first team results as the be all and end all.

Stop being daft. Everything IS wonderful, if not perfect. We are performing well in the top tier. We have a young squad; plenty of money; plenty of ambition. There is little to get negative about, but yet some of you still try to create issues, that franky are becomming less and less relevent as Cortese has slowly improved our club. Yes we could do with one or two additions; but that's quite a distance from saying that we NEED them. As for the 'juidicious use of "currently"' - I don't think I could be more confident that we will still be in the Premier League next season (barring mathematical certainty of course). The odds are ridiculously in our favour. I'd go as far to say that at 1250/1 or whatever the actual probability is, we almost have more chance of being relegated through a league points penalty out of the blue than we do through the remaining games. Anyone considering relegation this season as a serious possibility doesn't have a good grasp of probability, and should consider resitting their GSCE Maths.

Are we currently relegated? Yes we could have strenghtened the defence more last summer, and yes, I'd hope the transfer committee are focussed on doing so this summer. Fact of the matter is, we have IMO had an excellent season, with a squad brimming with young talent who are the envy of most of the league. By and large our purchases have paid off; nobody gets it right 100% and for every Mayuka there will be a Steve Davis or Rodrigez. While I'm sure we all share your concerns over a centre back. I think the tone of your post is completely irrational. The team wasn't 'largely built in league one'; we aren't 'screaming out' for anything particularly; last summer wasn't a 'cluster-f*ck'; you sir are, and continue to be completely wrong. The only part I agree with you on is 'Lets see what happens...' (oh and I for one hope we bring in a highly rated skillful centreback who is compfortable with ball at his feet and had a touch of pace about him)

Not again Alpine. Every season for at least the last 3, June approaches and you decide we need to replace the entire squad. Every season we have instead brought in 3 or 4 sensible first team purchases; some work out, some don't. Every season so far we have done just fine without panicing and replacing the whole team; despite your demands that we do so before the beginning of July. Let's face it, you've been wrong about this every season in the last 3, what makes you think you'll be right this summer?