Joensuu

Perhaps, just perhaps, the Lib Dem review will determine that we don't need a 'deterrent' anyhow... The review might be just enough to get past a few knuckle-headed voters who want our country to rambo up - but then most of them will vote BNP of UKIP anyhow, so I guess it doesn't matter.

.. and how will nukes help us defend against this? If a crazed despot who happily murders his own were to get a nuke, why would he be be deterred from firing first? And if he/she did, would we really fire back? Fragile, perhaps, but not in a way that nuclear weapons will be of any benefit. Our risk comes from individuals and groups, not from states. Perhaps if you were arguing for more spending on Intelligence or the SAS you'd have a point - but Nukes don't serve any purpose in the world today.

Depends how you want to look at it. It is indeed a low point in terms of the percentage of GDP the MoD has had at it's disposal in the past, but I still see plenty of room for further reductions. I think it best to compare us to some the other larger economies to see what percentage of GDP we spend of defence: USA 4% UK 2.4% France 2.3% China 2% Australia 1.9% Italy 1.8% Brazil 1.5% Germany 1.3% Canada 1.2% Spain 1.2% Japan 0.9% Source: 2008 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

Love my country; hate the way the national day is tarnished with racism (as adequately demonstrated by SRS and Dog in comments 7 &

Firstly, the Lib Dems are not arguing for 'no nuclear deterrent'. Even if they were, what use is a nuclear deterrent in today's world. Under what circumstances would the UK be squaring up to North Korea or Iran alone? And if bizarrely we were to be acting unilaterally, why would us re-developing nukes help the situation - do you really think that would make either country think twice? Do you think they care about their own people enough not to take the risk? Quite simply, our nuclear arsenal has no military purpose, it's not going to deter any real threat (it'll hardly help prevent a backpack being detonated, but it might go a long way towards attracting the attention of a person carrying a backpack when they are selecting their target). If anything I'd argue that having nuclear capacity in the modern world actually increases the chances that we will be a target, but does nothing to help protect us. We only 'pack a punch' because we focus such a high proportion of our spending towards the MoD (to the detriment of our schools and hospitals). What is this 'OBLIGATION' of which you speak? To whom are we obliged? I for one wish the Lib Dems were braver, and actually calling to scrap our nuclear deterrent. Oh and FWIW, I think Sweden or Norway are a better examples of countries that work well without needing to be able to wipe out 'enemy' cities at the touch of a button.

They certainly did, but only if you are naturally conservative. Personally Clegg's policies make the most sense, but each to ones own I guess. As for the 'result', the overall feel is mixed, basically that today hasn't really changed anything. The instant reaction polls are also mixed (YouGov suggest Cameron; ComRes and Angus Reid both point towards Clegg edging it). Looks like the press are going to call it a score draw. Brown looked like he was a awake (which to be fair is an improvement on last week), Cameron sounded far more composed, and Clegg avoided being knocked out by a killer blow. All in all after two heats Clegg will be happiest. (Meanwhile, I pocketed a whole £3.80, after YouGov declared for Cameron)

Radio 4 declare 'Clegg tactical win' Reporting a ComRes snap poll result: Conservatives: 35% (down 1 from last week's figures for viewers who saw the first debate) Lib Dems: 36% (up 1) Labour: 24% ComRes also asked who gave the most honest answers: Clegg: 43% Cameron: 29% Brown: 23% And ComRes also asked who exceeded expectations. Brown won on that count. Brown: 47% Cameron: 27% Clegg: 21%

Close between Cameron and Clegg. Brown was lost. Overall indecisive.

Nice! At one point I studied some of the different ways societies deal with death and burial. The native americans of the NW coast did something very similar to this, with bodies left on raised wooden platforms for birds. Madagascar was by far the most interesting country, with one tribe who buried people, then dug their bones back up for a second 'burial' which involved dragging other bones out of a tomb, then dancing with all of the bones, more an more violently until bones and ligaments start to break... then all of the bones are returned to the tomb. The idea is that over time all of the ancestors are mixed together. Madagascar also sees another group who mummify their dead, and store them wrapped up inside their houses. A great example sticks in my head where an anthropologist found grandma's body wrapped up in the living room being used as a shelf to support book and a TV... Well it's practical I guess.

I asked this question at the begining of the month. Ignoring the secured creditor, and ignoring the League's membership rule, if VFFT is correct then surely either: 1) All unsecured creditors agree to accept x p in the pound. As this is less than 100% for football creditors the league refuses Portsmouth its golden share in 2010/11. 2) or, as football creditors need to be repayed 100%, and it is not permitted to pay different unsecured creditors different amounts, therefore the club has to pay all unsecured creditors 100%. In otherwords, if HMRC or the Sally Army are forced to accept say 20p per £1 owed, surely Sol and Zahavi would also have to accept an identical 20p in the £1, and the league would refuse the share? But if Zahavi and Sol are paid in full, doesn't the law (not the league) say that HMRC etc need to be paid in full too?

Taking a look at today's UKPR polling average and then running that against Electoral Calculus gives the following predicted results. In theory (but not in reality) this is how the vote might be cast if the election were today: Now, obviously this scenario would be the one Dune suggested in his 'Why won't the liberals' thread. However, I am more interested in how biased our FPTP system is when a party can come a close second in votes cast, but a distant third in the number of MPs elected... In fact our FPTP system is so biased that even if the votes cast were Con: 27%, Lab:27%, Lib 37% the liberals would still not have the largest number of MPs! If one party were to receive a massive majority of the votes, but another get more MPs would electoral reform be demanded by the country?

Ouch!

Page 51 covers image rights: Nugent, Kranjcar, Utaka, Kanu, Ben Hiem, Diarra, Lauren, Muntari & Campbell are between them owed an outstanding £3,044,151

Not sure I suggested that they wouldn't be... I'm not one of the 'got away with it' freaks...

Yes we are listed in the table on page 45 for the total sum of £35,000 NB - the document lists every creditor...

Loads of bits I wasn't aware of...

Can't see it on the thread, but this must have been posted hasn't it? http://www.uhy-uk.com/media/news/PFC%20-%20Report%20to%20creditors%20Adobe%207.pdf

http://fansonline.net/portsmouth/article.php?id=1396

I call it asking his teacher for help with writing a post

+ 1

Hmm, if I erect a man out of straw on yonder hill, I can impress strangers with my amazing straw dismantling skills. That'll show 'em. Love the way you managed to big up the discredited Rupes and Georgie in the process... Here's to looking forward to next season under Pardew.

Fortunately the two parties would remain distinct, you'd instead get more diversity of opinion. I for one don't want a choice between left and right. I want to be able to select a liberal government without any authoritarian tendancies.

Only if you objected to all the other partys equally! Otherwise, if the BNP don't secure enough first choice votes, you might find that Respect win just enough second choice votes to beat the UKIP to the seat... Had you voted UKIP as your second choice you might have given the seat to UKIP instead of Respect...

Herein lies the weakness of PR. The bigger the region of scope, the more the parties are able to guarantee certain MPs get their seats (unless we can find a way of determining the order in which MPs gain seats within a party?). I.e. if the public were to vote on whether John Prescott should be allowed in parliament there would be resounding 'No', but unfortunately under neither the existing system nor PR can we stop him being ushered in... The smaller the region of scope, the less proportional the system is. If it used the current constituencies it would produce essentially the same results as the current system.

Not going to shout you down! No, only one vote is held. In that vote you select not just your preferred winner, but also your other preferrences. So you for example might select: 1st) BNP 2nd) UKIP 3rd) Tory 'Party A' gets more first choice votes than 'Party B', but neither party gets enough first choice votes to pass the threshold for gaining a seat. The second choice votes are now added in, and 'Party B' gets more second choice votes than 'Party A', enough for 'Pary B' to win a seat (despite not winning enough first choice votes). Basically, your second and third choice votes can also change the result.