PDA

View Full Version : David Cameron - Life Long Aston Villa Fan



dermotdermot
25-04-2015, 09:40 PM
Well supposedly. Only today he forgot and referred to them as West Ham. You have to give him the benefit of the doubt though. I mean they do play in similar colours.

wherewasi
25-04-2015, 09:44 PM
Every office has got at least one bloke who clearly doesn't really like football but gets badgered into revealing his favourite team. Cameron has a very direct family link to Villa so no surprise he's nominally attached himself to them. Equally no surprise he can barely remember. Says more about the vacuous nature of our political discourse that "I'm not really interested in football" could be seen as somehow negative...

hampsteadclaret
25-04-2015, 09:58 PM
One more clown who tries to attach himself to a football club, because 'it's trendy to do so' or because 'he wants to fit in' or in this case because he thinks there might be a few votes in it.

Pathetic.
Get the club right that you support 'Dave'.

dallasclaret
26-04-2015, 12:04 AM
he can't even remember his own lies, comedy gold XD XD XD XD XD XD XD XD XD XD XD XD XD XD XD XD

The Bedlington Terrier
26-04-2015, 07:06 AM
He also promises to sort out the NHS, relieve poverty and create equal opportunities. Yeah and I support Hartlepool. Jog on Dave, you are a joke.

Rowls
26-04-2015, 09:15 AM
Yes, it is always stupid when politicians pretend to like football.

We'd all rather they were honest and said they just don't follow the game.

Like most of Cameron's lesser moments - it is because he is trying to ape "soccer mad" Tony Blair.

We can blame Alistair Campbell for this craze. Or we can simply vote for the politician who would make the best Prime Minister, the one whose party has the best economic record and the best plan for continuing getting the country out of the muck.

Bobcloth2
26-04-2015, 09:20 AM
I like this idea of doing something stupid, then blaming it on someone else because they did fm something stupid years earlier.

wherewasi
26-04-2015, 09:36 AM
Ermmm, Rowls isn't David Cameron? Cameron didn't blame Blair; Rowls simply pointed out that, for some reason, having a team is apparently compulsory even for people who don't really gave a team. Both Blair and Cameron have now looked a bit daft as a result. I can't say that issue has any impact on my assessment on them as PMs.

whereeaglesfly
26-04-2015, 09:52 AM
I don't think Cameron would be the best Prime Minister and the Tory record isn't really that good.He also has a record of telling porkies and the football one is just another one of these.

Bobcloth2
26-04-2015, 09:55 AM
I thought he was Cameron, thank goodness you were here to correct me.
Job done for today.

lovebeingaclaret
26-04-2015, 10:04 AM
I know it's hard to believe but some politicians even forget the minor issues of the deficit! !!

hampsteadclaret
26-04-2015, 04:54 PM
As the woman on the Andrew Marr show said this morning the problem with this Aston Villa/West Ham stuff is that 'it makes you look rather insincere' when the story emerges. Better just to be truthful.

dermotdermot
26-04-2015, 05:05 PM
Alastair Campbell writes a pretty good synopsis of this matter on his blog. Rowls would just love it. I'd post a link but I'm having trouble doing so. Perhaps someone else could manage it.

hampsteadclaret
26-04-2015, 05:17 PM
Try this...I couldn't get the link in so I put the full blog in...my apologies.

It is a good read.


Why ‘Villagate’ is about more than football: it goes to the heart of Cameron character and how he does politics
Posted on 26 April 2015 | 6:04am



Alex Ferguson once said ‘there are two things you can never change – the way you walk. And your football team.’ Now as it happens I think some people do change the way they walk. But football, bloody hell, no, you just cannot change the club you love.

So Fergie, despite all those years with Aberdeen and Manchester United, is a Rangers man. I am a Burnley man, waking today with the pain of yesterday’s missed penalty and subsequent defeat to Leicester having left another little scar on my heart.

I could no more forget that I support Burnley than forget thes of my children. I accept I am on the obsessive end of the market when it comes to football. Also there is nothing wrong with people who don’t really get football. I live with one of

dermotdermot
26-04-2015, 05:25 PM
http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/

Many thanks for that. I've been trying for ages but couldn't seem to create a link.

ColdPieWarmBeer
26-04-2015, 05:55 PM
Lib Dem 404 page. Chuckle chuckle. - view external link (http://www.libdems.org.uk/osdpnfojlnqm%20wq)

Rowls
26-04-2015, 06:16 PM
Without having read the Alistair Campbell blog - of course it will be an entertaining read at the Prime Minister's expense.

Alistair Campbell knows everything there is to know about putting spin above substance. That's why he'll try his very best to put another spin on this.

It's the same reason why he made Tony Blair insist he "supported England" when England played Scotland (despite Edinburgh-educated Tony Blair's previous insistence that he "is Scottish").

It's why Campbell is clearly visible grinning maniacally in the background when playing head tennis with Kevin Keegan in 1997 - because this kind of "common people" spin is what propelled Tony Blair to power. Never mind that Blair is about as much of a "common man" as David Cameron. Playing head tennis used to be enough. Not any more.

The truth is, Cameron would have been much better advised not to try and copy Blair by pretending to be interested in football.

Cameron will be much better advised to concentrate on a mu

IanMcL
26-04-2015, 06:23 PM
Thank God that HRH Charles has a passion for Burnley and by default its football team. However, probably don't push him too much on the colours.

He has tried for the town and that is worth respect.

ColdPieWarmBeer
26-04-2015, 06:39 PM
That his tax and welfare reforms have provided Britain with a miraculous recovery in the jobs market. That his efforts to tackle the deficit have been key in building the foundations we now have for a stable and strong economy. That the only way to keep going on this path of recovery is through economic competence with the Conservatives. That the only way to keep the destructive SNP at bay is by voting Conservative.

I subvocalise when reading. About half way through that paragraph, I became robot!

Quattro
26-04-2015, 06:53 PM
Life long bell-end!

Rowls
26-04-2015, 06:55 PM
Read it again CPWB. There's a very important message about the future of the country there.

Sorry if my writing wasn't as readable as it should have been. However, the message is very important.

mkmel
26-04-2015, 07:06 PM
"Life long bell-end"


Cameron or Rowls...or both? lol :D

whereeaglesfly
26-04-2015, 07:08 PM
Miraculous recovery my arris.Your diatribe comes straight from the Conservative book of utter tripe.Mr Campbells blog on the other hand sums up Cameron to a tee.The electorate look set to reject a Tory majority despite this so-called miracle and the options to form a coalition seem certain to favour Labour.

mkmel
26-04-2015, 07:14 PM
Cameron trying to make out he's an ordinary bloke by pretending to be a football fan and it has backfired.

A bit like Haigh a few years back with his drinking 10 pints a night and wearing his baseball cap back to front


See link for Cameron's cock up - view external link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32463038)

spijed
26-04-2015, 07:36 PM
Rowls, and yet you support a Prime minister who used his own disabled son to claim he went to the NHS like any other parent and waited patently to be seen. That is one of the biggest political lies in his career. He has not once gone through the normal route to see a doctor and you can see from any picture with his son Ivan that he was using the opportunity to say he cares about the NHS. The only tears he shed for his dead son were crocodile ones, nothing more, nothing less. Yet you think he is a good man.

How wrong you are - very wrong in fact!

Quattro
26-04-2015, 08:16 PM
Mkmel's: I was referring to Cameron...never met, or actually know anything about Rowls to make such a statement!

taio
26-04-2015, 08:24 PM
'The only tears he shed for his dead son were crocodile ones, nothing more, nothing less'

I wasn't going to comment on this thread. I fully appreciate that some people hate Cameron, which is fine. But the above comment is simply wrong, horrible and out of order.

dermotdermot
26-04-2015, 08:26 PM
'That his tax and welfare reforms have provided Britain with a miraculous recovery in the jobs market. That his efforts to tackle the deficit have been key in building the foundations we now have for a stable and strong economy. That the only way to keep going on this path of recovery is through economic competence with the Conservatives. That the only way to keep the destructive SNP at bay is by voting Conservative'.

What a load of tosh. What miraculous recovery in the jobs market? Only today I heard him spouting off about how his party is the party of small business. Everyone knows that the banks have been hauling in overdrafts and are refusing to lend money. I'd like to know just how small businesses are supposed to get off the ground without being able to borrow.

I reckon that it's time for Rowls to take one of those periodical sabbaticals that he goes on from time to time. You know, like the time he traveled to war torn Yugoslavia on a quest to find out whether Martial Tito was

Rowls
26-04-2015, 08:41 PM
You old-fashioned socialists can post what you want.

2 million jobs created.

The basic rate by which the lowest paid start paying tax almost doubled.

These truths are unarguable.

This government has done more for the working class and the low paid since the creation of the welfare state.

The richest are paying more than ever before and paying a larger percentage than ever before.

It doesn't matter how daft you lot get or what rubbish you post about Margaret Thatcher, Tito and Vidal Sassoon. And if you want to be vicious or libellous regarding David Cameron's late disabled son that's your own risk and it's your own reputation at stake. Not mine.

You can slag me off too and call me whatevers you like. It isn't going to alter how much this coalition has done for the lowest paid and the working classes.

The facts speak for themselves and more people read this board than post on it. They can make up their own minds and I'm sure they will.

mkmel
26-04-2015, 08:51 PM
"This government has done more for the working class and the low paid since the creation of the welfare state.

The richest are paying more than ever before and paying a larger percentage than ever before".



Ok ClaretsMadders I would be interested to hear your views on the above comments made by Rowls

Got to say that I,like many people,have no time whatsoever for Cameron but the comments made by a poster on here about Cameron's feelings for his dead disabled son was despicable,unwarranted and completely out of order

The Bedlington Terrier
26-04-2015, 08:56 PM
Rowls - are you in the 1% whose lives have actually improved under Cameron?

dermotdermot
26-04-2015, 09:02 PM
All in good faith and humour, Rowls. You've got to admit that Cameron is a bit of a joker though. Like the time that he pretended to be held up for hours waiting to take an Easyjet on one of his numerous holidays. The thing that he got wrong on that occasion was the fact that he and his wife were the only people there.

wherewasi
26-04-2015, 09:06 PM
The facts Rowls gives are true. Like everything else, however, it's complicated. The very rich are also more 'very rich' therefore the facts are to be expected.

I believe the subjective statement as well.

I'll be voting for the Tories because (I can only speak as I find), the supporters of the other major party don't represent how I see the world at all, socially, morally, industrially, financially and, currently, as far as I can see, live in a time-warp where the UK can go back to the comparative advantage it had before globalisation. When a lunatic fringe party like the Greens cosy up to you because they feel they have much in common, that says it all. The same could be said about UKIP but they remain, whatever they say, fundamentally a single issue party and seeing some common ground on one issue is not as damning as the multi-headed lunacy that is the Greens seeing common cause.

silkyskills1
26-04-2015, 09:06 PM
'How much this coalition has done for the lowest paid and the working classes'

Don't forget foodbanks and zero hour contracts 'on the up' too. Incredible!:s :s

Rowls
26-04-2015, 09:18 PM
Claret13552,

"Rowls - are you in the 1% whose lives have actually improved under Cameron?"

I'm one of the 30 million who have benefited from the increase in the basic tax allowance that this coalition has implemented.

Credit for this has to go to both the Lib Dems and the Conservatives.

You often hear phrases that mean nothing in modern politics. Things like "the 1%" or "...and the poor will be worst hit". These are often meaningless platitudes. Of course the poor are often hit hardest when recessions strike - they have the least capability to ride through hard times.

But what this government has done has helped the lowest paid the most. The rich have had the same increase in their personal allowance as all taxpayers. (This is why Labour like to call it a "tax cut for the rich") But the truth is that whilst the rise in the personal allowance is basically peanuts for the very wealthy, the extra money has made a world of difference for low paid people like myself.

It

Quattro
26-04-2015, 09:21 PM
Rowls: These two millions jobs which you say have been created...how many of them are of the zero-hours contract nature?

Zero hours contracts are the biggest load of bo11ocks since Owen Coyles "I've got a job to do" statement! How can a family man be expected to survive and provide for a family with no sort of financial security?

Plus, don't they impact further on a persons ability to claim benefits, so they leave people who actually want to work to earn their money not actually able to do so as they can't claim any sort of support? I suppose that ties in nicely to cutting the welfare system...just pushing more people into poverty, including children, ensuring that people have to rely on charity in the form of food banks!

The Tories are the nasty party!

They'll be seen for this when if they get in a privatise the NHS!

mkmel
26-04-2015, 09:26 PM
Talking of privatising the NHS I read somewhere the other day that over the last 5 years ie since the Coalition that 40% of NHS contracts have been awarded to private companies

spijed
26-04-2015, 09:30 PM
Rowls, you may or may not be aware that I have Cerebral Palsy myself. As a result I've met many people who are extremely bitter at the way they and others with disabilities have been treated in this country in the last few years.

There are many blogs and opinions regarding they way David Cameron talks about his own experience of the NHS and how welfare for disabled people is fair and equal.

There have been a number of people who have taken their own lives due to the pressures and squeeze on the benefits system.

Perhaps using the term "Crocodile tears" may have been unwarranted, but there is an awful lot of anger at the way some in society have been treated. Knowing some friends who have been reduced to tears because of their situation seems to be lost on many members of the Tory party.

That is why I and many others with a disability feel e way we do towards the Conservative Party.

taio
26-04-2015, 09:30 PM
Mel, no idea if the 40% is true or not. But the problem with these types of headline is they are completely misleading. It would be 40% of little as the overwhelming majority of services don't get tendered - most contracts are entered into by commissioners with NHS trusts to provide services.

Rowls
26-04-2015, 09:42 PM
"Rowls: These two millions jobs which you say have been created...how many of them are of the zero-hours contract nature?"

This is what is wrong with the Labour party and their arguments.

1. There aren't any reliable figures to answer that question.
2. What would you rather have - A zero hours contract job or no job
3. How do you think people become rich? Do you imagine they just get a job paying £100k straight from school or do you think they have to work their way up?

Zero-hours jobs aren't ideal but they are infinitely better than no job.

Nobody who is sane imagines the Labour could have created half as many jobs with their tax and spend policies - not even zero hours contracts.

I can let you into a little secret too Quattro: Despite working with lots of other low paid people, I have heard nobody apart from Ed Milliband mention "zero hours contracts" and only read about it in left-wing opinion columns.

Ed Milliband can bang on about it as much as he likes

Rowls
26-04-2015, 09:45 PM
And that's it from me tonight folks.

ColdPieWarmBeer
26-04-2015, 11:18 PM
Allegedly improving the lot of normal people doesn't exactly seem to reconcile with a projected loss of thirty-odd seats, even with Murdoch behind the Tories and in full Miliband-hatchet-job mode on a daily basis, but I'd still love to see someone try.

Steve_Harpers_Perm
26-04-2015, 11:42 PM
'Zero hours contracts aren't ideal but they are infinitely better than no job'.

If the jobs are there then hardworking people deserve security not waiting for a phone call each day to see if they have a days work to help pay the bills.

Still least the Tories have achieved one thing to help those struggling and that's an increase in the amount of foodbanks.

whereeaglesfly
27-04-2015, 10:00 AM
Massive increase in food banks.
Massive increase in those using food banks.
Large increase in zero hours contracts.
Massive increase in people having their benefits sanctioned.
Large increase in low paid self-employment.
Large increase in low paid workers having to claim housing benefit.
Large increase in workers having to claim tax credits because of their low earnings.
Disabled people and their Carers punished by the bedroom tax.
People dying because they have had their benefits stopped.
Large increases in private sector rents.
Broken promises with regard to the NHS,VAT,Child Benefit,EMA,Tuition Fees and many other areas.
Millions of pounds wasted on the so-called introduction of universal credit.
More borrowing than in the entire history of the Labour Party.
It sure has been miracle.

dermotdermot
27-04-2015, 12:18 PM
Not as miraculous as giving Ireland 20 billion pounds six months after the last election when they had been constantly waving that bit of paper about stating that there was no money left.

nil_desperandum
27-04-2015, 05:15 PM
"You old-fashioned socialists can post what you want"

I'm reluctant to give Rowls encouragement to return to this thread, but I was just wondering why he makes the assumption that those who are anti-Cameron, like myself, are old-fashioned socialists?
Cameron's problem, and indeed that of the Conservative party, is that for decades now there has been a massive anti-Tory majority. At the last election only 23% of those eligible to vote actually voted Conservative. (Hence the coalition).
That means over 75% disagree with them. This covers the entire spectrum of the population ranging from the extreme right to the extreme left.
I know of several people whose political instincts are generally leaning towards the right who won't vote for Cameron for various reasons.
The first past the post system always gives the Conservatives a near certain chance of coming 1st or 2nd, but they have many opponents - not just the "Old-fashioned" left.

dermotdermot
27-04-2015, 05:19 PM
Where is Rowls today anyway. Surely he must be up by now.

PatrickJ
27-04-2015, 05:55 PM
nil desperandum - it is quite a leap to say over 75% of the electorate disagreed with the Tories at the last election as you have included all of the 35% who didn't vote.

Using the same logic only 18% of the electorate voted Labour so there was a massive 82% anti- Labour majority.

wherewasi
27-04-2015, 06:11 PM
That 23% stat (or rather the interpretation of its inverse) is, for a supposedly intelligent poster, either one of the stupidest things ever said on here or one of the most transparently dishonest ones. Either way, you emerge with no credit.

yesTHATironingboard
27-04-2015, 06:18 PM
his last paragraph was at least a good point.

the current system maintains an awful status quo between bad and slightly worse.

wherewasi
27-04-2015, 06:23 PM
Leave the Quo out of it. great acoustic set at Wolverhampton last week...

claretchrish
27-04-2015, 08:58 PM
"Zero hours contracts aren't ideal but they are infinitely better than no job at all."

I think some Tories naively believe that.

They are markedly worse in many ways. An employee gets the unique opportunity to make a range of commitments relating to availability to work and access to travel for the sum total of a commitment of nothing in the slightest, employment uncertainty and restricted access to benefits. At least they only affect the poorest and most socially immobile.

Zero hours contracts are a blight on our country.

Rowls
27-04-2015, 09:09 PM
That's more like it!

Well done to claretchrish.

He says it's better to be unemployed than working on a zero hours contract.

Bravo!

That's the kind level we're aiming at here! Don't get out of bed for anything less than 10k. That's my motto.

And don't go casting for my opinions unless you have something truly loopy to say.

Well done chrish! :)

yesTHATironingboard
27-04-2015, 09:18 PM
a cynical ideologue you certainly are, rowls.

goodness knows what this country could acheive if it could shrug off the old lady politics that rowls et al would desperately try to convince you you can't do without.

claretchrish
27-04-2015, 09:19 PM
"He says it's better to be unemployed than working on a zero hours contract."

I didn't say that, but it's (edit:often) true. Why would any sane human want to enter into a contract in which they have to make a range of commitments that make them financially worse off in return for no commitment whatsoever?

That's not a rhetorical question Rowls; answer it.

dermotdermot
27-04-2015, 09:32 PM
I'm glad to see that you're finally embracing socialism, Rowls. I knew that it was only a matter of time.

nil_desperandum
28-04-2015, 12:23 PM
"nil desperandum - it is quite a leap to say over 75% of the electorate disagreed with the Tories at the last election as you have included all of the 35% who didn't vote.

Using the same logic only 18% of the electorate voted Labour so there was a massive 82% anti- Labour majority."

So what did I say that was inaccurate then?
Your figure of 18% is also totally correct.
My point was that a pretty low percentage of the population are Tory voters, and that - in reply to Rowls' post, that does not mean that the other 75% are "old-fashioned Socialists".
In fact your post reinforces this, since it proves that 18% or less are "old-fashioned Socialists".
This is why we will end up with a minority government or coalition.

nil_desperandum
28-04-2015, 12:25 PM
"That 23% stat (or rather the interpretation of its inverse) is, for a supposedly intelligent poster, either one of the stupidest things ever said on here or one of the most transparently dishonest ones. Either way, you emerge with no credit"

Thanks for that wherewasi. Context is everything.(See my post above.)

oldieclaret
28-04-2015, 05:55 PM
When Rowls tells us that two million jobs have been created he appears to imply that these were created by Cameron. During the same period, net immigration was approximately 1,145,000, many of these people taking jobs which were previously unattractive to native British. In turn,each immigrant would have resulted in further jobs to supply and service them. If Cameron had done what he promised, "no iffs, no buts", and reduced immigration to the tens of thousands, there would have been correspondingly less new jobs.

Is it not clear that an increase in population will normally result in an increase in jobs? Obviously there are more people in jobs than when the population was smaller.

wherewasi
28-04-2015, 06:52 PM
Nil

You said over 75% disagreed with Tories. Firstly, it's a gross assumption to say that all those who did not vote at all disagree with them. Secondly, it's too simplistic to say that all those who vote for other parties disagree with them. Obviously they preferred someone else but a single vote can only go one place.

Current polls suggest a slight majority by percentage of what many would regard as 'right leaning' parties.

wherewasi
28-04-2015, 06:56 PM
Nice one oldie claret standing up for the native British who can't be arsed getting out of bed for jobs that are beneath them. There's the impact of the welfare state...

nil_desperandum
28-04-2015, 08:19 PM
"You said over 75% disagreed with Tories."

Ok. Fair enough point. Perhaps I could have worded it better, but that hardly makes me dishonest or stupid as you claimed.
My point, as I think you know, is that at the last election less than 25% of the electorate voted Conservative. This has been the case in all recent elections. (I had no need to mention that Labour and the Lib Dems got less - that much is obvious).
In his post Rowls was implying that all those who for whatever reason do not support Cameron are "old-fashioned socialists". My point was that the 75% who don't vote Conservative are in most cases not Socialists of any type.
There's not much point the Tories reaching out to the unreconstructed left, but if they are ever to achieve a majority again they will have to persuade far more than the current 25% to support their policies. All parties should be concerned about the 35% who didn't vote last time - especially the under 30s.

Quattro
28-04-2015, 08:43 PM
There's the ABC's in football (Anyone But Cardiff) and now we ha e the ABC's in politics...Anyone But Conservatives or Anyone But Cameron.

Nasty, spiteful man, leading a nasty spiteful party!

whereeaglesfly
29-04-2015, 09:17 AM
The Tories are promising something new everyday but don't want to tell us how they will finance this.There will be massive cuts and the poor,low paid and disabled will be hammered.The Tory press are working overtime on demonizing Labour and the SNP,you've got to laugh at how low they will sink to stay in power.

nil_desperandum
29-04-2015, 09:30 AM
"Current polls suggest a slight majority by percentage of what many would regard as 'right leaning' parties."
Do you mean Conservative and Labour? ;D

Rowls
29-04-2015, 09:41 AM
The Conservatives have been "hammering" the low paid by letting them keep more of their money. The Conservatives have nearly doubled the amount they can keep before the government starts taxing the low paid.

The Conservatives have been very "nasty" by taking action to cut the deficit. They've very "nastily" created 2 million jobs.

I want the kind of part who can create jobs and fix the economy. The kind of party who will tackle the deficit and who will let the low paid keep more of their wages - the Conservative party.

Rowls
29-04-2015, 09:47 AM
Can anyone else remember when Gordon Brown abolished the 10p started rate for income tax and the low paid suddenly lost even more of their low pay?

All so that Gordon could increase the government debt even further will his spending plans?

All with Miliband and Balls by his side?

Does anyone else remember the Labour MPs revolting because their own party were taxing the low paid more than anyone else?

And do you remember why they said this wasn't a problem?

The answer was - "It's OK, yes we're taking away more of your pay. But some of you can claim benefits. So stop complaining."

It's no wonder the working classes have deserted Labour and are still deserting them.

Labour stopped being the party for working people years ago.

Labour represent welfarism and the middle-class London elite. They are divorced from reality.

whereeaglesfly
29-04-2015, 11:33 AM
Rowls,if everything is so wonderful under the Tories just why is it that they are not going to get a majority, indeed they would appear to be doing worse than last time when they also didn't get a majority. They are seen by many as the nasty party.Just why won't they explain now what they are going to cut and just which people will be directly effected by their 12 billion in Welfare Cuts.The reason is because many people will find their real ideas as unpalatable.They won't say now because they are unscrupulous and devious and want to win at any cost.

Claret_Russ
29-04-2015, 11:48 AM
Today's Tory commitment to enshrine in law a guarantee that VAT, income tax and NI won't rise in 5 years is as disingenuous as it is economically reckless.

First the disingenuous part - the guarantee to take this action within 100 days of assuming power, effectively giving them 3 months to rush through a VAT increase before passing the law. Of course, they've said they won't do this - but then they said that last time, didn't they?

The reckless part - removing any real flexibility in the revenue raising powers of the chancellor for an entire Parliament. Who knows what economic storm might come our way over that period? The proposal for an EU referendum is likely to cause all manner of certainty in the run up to it, and all hell could break loose if the result is the UK pulling out of the EU. Is Cameron really saying that we can mitigate the effects of that through even more severe spending cuts to non-ringfenced areas than are already on the table?

The party that likes to portray it

pstotto
29-04-2015, 02:35 PM
Cameron: "I can distinctly remember the first match Dad took me to watch at Villa Park, it was 1973 and we lost 3-0 to Burnley. Ever since then I've been hooked on the Villa".

Looking at the news today, it seems we should be more concerned about who Russell Brand's footy team is. He's the next PM apparently.

mkmel
29-04-2015, 02:35 PM
Tory backing gutter press like the Sun & the Mail have been in overdrive in their attacks on Ed Miliband which will hopefully backfire on them.

We've also had a Tory councillor calling Ed Miliband 'that Jew'

Glad when they're ousted

claretchrish
30-04-2015, 05:32 PM
Have I missed Rowls' list of convincing reasons why a zero hours contract is so much better than being unemployed?

1959_60
30-04-2015, 06:05 PM
Errrr, Rowls.

In reference to your claim that it was the Tories who put up the personal tax allowance to £10,600 (post 66)...please check the link.

Lets give credit where it is due. - view external link (http://www.libdemvoice.org/we-cannot-afford-it-cameron-on-raising-income-tax-threshold-to-10k-in-2010-34342.html)

ColdPieWarmBeer
30-04-2015, 06:07 PM
Because underemployment and the odd fortnight of poverty and malnutrition here or there builds character, chrish. Everyone knows that. Arbeit macht frei, as the super productive and hard working Germans would have said about, I dunno, seventy odd years ago.

Rowls
30-04-2015, 06:41 PM
1959_60 - Yes, fair do's. It was a coalition policy. Credit to Lib Dems and Conservatives.

The raising of the personal allowance has done more for the low paid than we have seen for decades.

It is great to see an "arms race" between the Lib Dems and Conservatives to see who can promise to let the low paid keep more of their money. THIS is exactly what politics should be about: Helping people on the lower rungs of society to lift themselves upwards. It is truly great to see.

I will not begrude the Lib Dems an ounce of credit due to them on this policy.

It's just a shame that the Labour party are now the biggest obstacle to the low paid working classes. It's as if they are on a mission to prove Enoch Powell right all along.

******

A special mention too for Claret_Russ:

Well done to you managing to type out (almost word for word) the lead editorial article from today's Guardian.

Your ability to re-type what you read is outstanding. Have you considered a career as a secretary?

Rowls
30-04-2015, 06:48 PM
Claretchrish: "Have I missed Rowls' list of convincing reasons why a zero hours contract is so much better than being unemployed?"

No.

I've not provided one because well over 99% of people understand that having a job is better than not having a job.

There's no need to for me to make any argument against you here: Loony opinions like that persuade more people to not bother voting for Labour than I ever could.

ColdPieWarmBeer
30-04-2015, 07:03 PM
Aye up, Rowls, Davebot Cameratron is on the telly over-simplifying the welfare state. Quick, grab a tissue!

Rowls
30-04-2015, 07:10 PM
CPWB

I feel like crying when most politicians are on TV and DC has much the same "media-savvy" simplification problem as most modern politicians.

The problem is that these soundbites and platitudes (along with superficial appearance) win votes and win elections.

The leader who plays the media right wins the election.

We can't change how people think and how people vote. Not overnight at least.

But right now, I'm just glad Cameron is better than Miliband and that people are gradually realising just how much better Conservative policies are for the country.

whereeaglesfly
30-04-2015, 07:31 PM
Going back to the Tories hammering the poor and the low paid, it would seem that Danny Alexander has given us a clue to where some of their welfare cuts will fall, their going to take Child Benefit and Tax Credits off them. However, they are too cowardly to spell this out now.An eminent Professor of Economics sums them up very well, "Conservatives like to use the alleged dangers of debt and deficits as clubs with which to beat the welfare state and justify cuts in benefits".If someone earns £10,000 per year and you raise their tax allowance to £12,500, just what do they gain from that? Take away their tax credits and child benefit and they lose a great deal.Reduce their housing benefit and charge them more council tax and they lose even more.

Rowls
30-04-2015, 07:36 PM
"An eminent Professor of Economics sums them up"

An onlooker said, "They look so happy holding hands."
A concerned bystander said, "They made it all up."

claretchrish
30-04-2015, 08:04 PM
"I've not provided one because well over 99% of people understand that having a job is better than not having a job."

This kind of sums up your naivety Rowls - the fact you equate a zero hours contract to 'a job'.

Its probably more accurate to say that most people understand that having paid employment is better than not having paid employment. Zero hours contracts are no guarantee that you will be paid for your employment, but you are expected to make commitments as to your availability, your willingness to travel and be happy to restrict your access to benefits in return. A lot to ask of people who are usually poor enough as it is.

Truth is, you seem to delight in believing and spreading the polemic that zero hours contracts are great, but the reason you won't address the reasons why they are so good is because you either don't know what you are talking about or you're a coward.

yesTHATironingboard
30-04-2015, 08:12 PM
imagine a scenario where you depend on job seekers allowance and housing benefit and the only job available is based on a zero-hour contract (newspeak for no contract).

do you gamble the security that the benefit provides for the risk of losing the roof over your head?

as usual rowls spouts about a world that he can only read about in his beloved daily mail.

taio
30-04-2015, 08:16 PM
I do get perplexed by the labour party and their supporters' attack on the present government's record on zero hours contracts and NHS privatisation. What did the last labour government do about zero hours contracts during their 13 years in power, and did they not oversee more privatisation of the NHS when in power than the present government? I'd appreciate this being explained, especially the point about NHS privatisation because that genuinely confuses me.

BereavementDividend
30-04-2015, 08:19 PM
Thatcher made the NHS essentially like a business. With management coming from none medical backgrounds (not a major deal, but depends how you look at it). They have it set up now where everything is essentially like a supermarket chain, ordering in stock and having budgets allocated and there are also things like targets to adhere to, time driven stuff, amount of patients scene per whatever.

Claret_Russ
01-05-2015, 08:04 AM
"A special mention too for Claret_Russ:

Well done to you managing to type out (almost word for word) the lead editorial article from today's Guardian.

Your ability to re-type what you read is outstanding. Have you considered a career as a secretary?"

Wrong, Rowls. I typed that out on 29th April, on the 30th you accuse me of copying today's Guardian. I admire your faith in my ability to see into the future, alas I have no such power. I can however see through Tory fluff, lies & gimmicks.

For clarity I haven't copied anything from anywhere, so how about responding to the issues raised instead of making false assertions?

Imploding Turtle
01-05-2015, 11:03 AM
Apparently this is a real career defining election. - view external link (http://vine.co/v/e7glnbTDHzq)

Imploding Turtle
01-05-2015, 11:05 AM
"For clarity I haven't copied anything from anywhere, so how about responding to the issues raised instead of making false assertions?"

Good luck with that. Have you not read a Rowls post before?

spijed
01-05-2015, 11:50 AM
UK polling report is a good website for those interested in polls - view external link (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk)

whereeaglesfly
01-05-2015, 02:51 PM
Rowls, your remarks regarding the conclusions of the eminent Professor of Economics that I quoted are vacuous.I am sure that he would find your intellectual observations to be a great challenge.In the meantime growth in the manufacturing sector slowed sharply in April,the biggest fall since Feb 2013. This follows on from the news that growth had been halved to 0.3%. The economic miracle continues.

ColdPieWarmBeer
01-05-2015, 06:45 PM
Interesting one for anyone that may have watched the Question Time debate last night, and some may have already seen this, but it turns out Little Miss Marketing Agency may have been a Tory plant, despite applying for QT as an 'undecided'. Link is pretty much the definition of partisan; hope that fact doesn't cause too much butthurt. - view external link (http://labourlist.org/2015/05/about-that-question-time-audience/)

dermotdermot
01-05-2015, 08:03 PM
Very interesting link CPWB. Especially when you go further down the page and watch Russell Brand's view of a tory political party broadcast. In it we see Cameron supposedly watching one of his children playing football, only we don't actually see the children, just their legs. And, if you look carefully, those legs are most unlikely to be the legs of any child belonging to Mr. Cameron.

Duffer
01-05-2015, 09:12 PM
Can anybody honestly say that we aren't in a better place now than we were when labour was in charge?
It's a vicious circle labour get in power spend spend spend conservatives get in power sort out labours overspending by making cuts and somehow they end up the c@nts.
UKIP for me and before all you sanctimonious left wing two hats start yes I am uneducated.

hampsteadclaret
02-05-2015, 07:22 AM
UKIP will be a wasted vote Duffer, I doubt they will win a single seat anywhere, though they will pick up plenty of votes.

Nigel Farage is hoping to win about five or six, to give him some power in the shake-up, but I believe he will be disappointed.

I quite like Farage, he is a formidable politician and his views on limiting immigration effectively, are reasonable...the country 'is full up'...it is some of his supporters that stop me sleeping at night.

taio
02-05-2015, 07:41 AM
Only just found the time to watch Thursday QT leaders' debate. Absolutely incredible that Miliband insisted that the previous Labour government didn't spend too much. If he is so adamant about that surely there has to be huge doubts about his ability to implement robust economic policies. That exemplifies why I couldn't vote for Labour with Miliband and his sidekick fronting the party. A massive mistake by Miliband showing his true colours.

foreverlyclaret
02-05-2015, 08:21 AM
Just trying to ingratiate himself with the " ordinary " people..what do you expect from a bloke who has gone on record that his favourite sport is FOX HUNTING .He really is in touch with the people up here in Heckmondwike !!! I've just seen his interview with Charlie Stayt...he NEVER answers a question directly .On the subject of benefits...Rowls et al take note ...the greater proportion of benefits paid are to people who are IN repeat IN work .Some employers are taking advantage of this and paying less than the going rate and taking advantage of zero hours contracts .Before I retired I ran my own business in Lancashire and employed over 30 people...NONE were on minimum wage and NONE had a zero hours contract and...guess what...I'm a card-carrying RED...and so was my best customer...a guy who built up a multi million pound business in Leyland employing hundreds..he didn't pay minimum wages either .Its about what 's fair not about screwing people who are already having a struggle .By t

yesTHATironingboard
02-05-2015, 09:18 AM
as much as i detest cameron he never actually said his favourite sport was fox hunting. he was misquoted by andrew marr and marr actually apologised for it.

nil_desperandum
02-05-2015, 11:28 AM
"Absolutely incredible that Miliband insisted that the previous Labour government didn't spend too much"
Whether they spent too much is a matter of opinion. However, where Miliband went wrong on Thursday was that whilst defending the spending, he FAILED to point out that whilst in opposition Osborne not only supported the spending, but promised to match it if the Tories were elected.
This policy changed of course after the banking crisis when both parties admitted that spending had to be reined in.
Miliband also failed to acknowledge that Liam Byrne's "joke" note that Cameron keeps in his pocket was a reference to a previous Tory Chancellor - Reginald Maudling, who left a similar lighthearted message in 1964:
""Good luck, old cock... Sorry to leave it in such a mess."

taio
02-05-2015, 11:58 AM
Of course it's down to opinion...and opinion suggests that more people trust the Tories to manage the economy better than Labour.

Miliband referred to being proud of the new hospitals, schools etc they paid for. The big problem is many aren't paid for - labour's drive and poor handling of PFI schemes have saddled public organisations with massive long term debt.

I tend to judge what governments do when in power rather than what a party says in opposition. An example, is Labour's ongoing criticism about NHS privatisation - easy to oppose when in opposition, but the reality is they did more privatisation of the NHS than the current collation government has done.

hampsteadclaret
02-05-2015, 01:01 PM
Of all the krapp that will be coming out of the Cameron camp this week, and there will be truckloads of it, in their very negative campaign, [Miliband stabbed his broth in the back; Labour and the SNP etc] is the lie that 'we are all in this together'. Yeah right.

The Conservatives despise the poor, and they blame the poor for being poor...never mind the very obvious point that for a Capitalist system to work effectively, there has to be winners and losers...the profits can't go equally to everyone or it wouldn't be capitalism.

'an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state'


So there are bound to be some at the bottom of the pile, millions of them. For the Tories these then are the people to be blamed..they are wasters, ****less, useless, scroungers, malingerers, dossers and the cause of the country's economic ills and they then become a target when 'essential' cuts in welfare spending

1959_60
02-05-2015, 01:03 PM
If I were still undecided who to vote for (I am a proud Lib Dem) then I wouldn't consider Labour or the Tories because of the way that they refuse to give answers to ***** questions.

The Toris have said that they will make £12 billion more cuts - but are refusing to tell us where. Sorry David, not a chance.

Miliband claims that there will be no deal with the SNP...and when he does he will be toxic. There is no way that he will let David Cameron walk back into number 10 when he can easily avoid it. And to claim that the last Labour government didn't borrow and spend too much? Peter Mandelson (remember him?) said "We were in a pit of debt - and we kept on digging"

As a country we desperately need the Lib Dems to gather enough seats to be a player after the elections.

The alternative options fill me with dread.

taio
02-05-2015, 01:23 PM
The idea that the Tories and Lib Dems have done a terrible job on the economy is completely laughable. Labour criticised the coalition government's economic plans at every juncture, and just about every one of their calls turned out to be totally wrong. They are simply not credible on the economy and they have done more to privatise the NHS than the Tories and Lib Dems - the two most important issues for many people.

nil_desperandum
02-05-2015, 01:33 PM
"Miliband claims that there will be no deal with the SNP...and when he does he will be toxic"
But the point is that Miliband doesn't need a deal with the SNP, (though he can't at this stage say it).
Miliband can go it alone in a minority administration, even if he has less seats than Cameron. He could almost certainly get a Queen's speech through whereas Cameron almost certainly couldn't unless he made a formal agreement with another party.
i.e. There would be enough in a Labour written Queen's speech to ensure that the SNP wouldn't chuck it out, and the Liberals might support it too.
If The SNP were to vote against a Labour Queen's speech, therefore potentially letting in the Tories, they would lose any credibility in Scotland, where the Conservatives are despised.
With regards to other legislation. The SNP wouldn't demand an EU referendum, so that is an irrelevance, and if the SNP voted against Trident or asked for another Scottish referendum, it wouldn't matter, because, in theory

hampsteadclaret
02-05-2015, 01:34 PM
It is you that is laughable.
Most days of the week.


I didn't see you take any of my suggested economic 'fails' up...did you?

ps..I never mentioned the NHS.

taio
02-05-2015, 01:45 PM
Hampstead, I wasn't even replying to you - I couldnt be arsed reading most of your post. I was making general points. It's no surprise you attacking the poster rather than the point in what has been a largely sensible debate. Says everything about you I suppose.

hampsteadclaret
02-05-2015, 01:48 PM
nil_desperandum is entirely accurate in his summing up of where we stand at present.

A Labour minority Govenment could give it a go...there does not need to be any formal deal with the SNP..Nicola Sturgeon may stamp her feet but Miliband might not need her...Once the next Parliament got under way, the SNP would support quite a lot of what Labour want to do, they are not far apart on many issues..Labour would welcome that support.


If at some point in the future the rug was pulled from under Labour's feet leading to a vote of 'no confidence' this might lead to another General Election; conventional thinking on this seems to be that most voters would not welcome the intrusion of another election campaign, and would shed many angry hacked-off looks on the rug-pullers..

hampsteadclaret
02-05-2015, 02:05 PM
taio..104..'Hampstead, I wasn't even replying to you.'

But of course you were, I don't believe you for a second.

Since your last post, there were only two posts.

One was mine and one was from a chap who typed this [post 100]..

'I am a proud Lib Dem'

In your very next post [101] you say this..

'The idea that the Tories and Lib Dems have done a terrible job on the economy is completely laughable.'


So you and the 'proud Lib Dem' were on the same side
[Coalition].

So your next post was directed at me, because pretty much all I said in it, was that the Tories had done a pyyss poor job on the economy.

- plus you have a go at pretty much everything I put on here..[I'm up for that one all day long..;D ]

You are about as sincere as the Prime Minister.

JeremyBender
02-05-2015, 02:26 PM
hampsteadclaret:
"- and they're going to sell off housing stock to their owners on the cheap [another bribe] creating an even bigger housing shortage for those who cannot afford to buy"

How can they sell housing stock to their owners?

lovebeingaclaret
02-05-2015, 02:33 PM
Hampstead ... I suggest you get your blood pressure checked.

hampsteadclaret
02-05-2015, 02:50 PM
107..my error.

For owners I meant tenants..the Daily Telegraph [yes the Telegraph] said this about this scheme..I would have put the link in, but it is very long and I couldn't shorten it...thought it might not work.

The Daily Telegraph starts by saying this;

'Extending the right to buy is economically illiterate and morally wrong.

At a time of housing crisis, when 1.8 million families languish on council waiting lists, how can David Cameron justify a massive £5.8 billion sell-off?

That is, in summary, the most accurate description of Tory plans to extend the existing Right to Buy scheme to allow 1.3 million housing association tenants the opportunity to buy their own homes.
As the centrepiece of the Tory manifesto launched today, David Cameron hopes that his revival of the Thatcherite dream of a property-owning democracy will prove his claim that the Conservatives are the party of ordinary working people.
This policy may well be politically tempting to Tory campaign managers, and

hampsteadclaret
02-05-2015, 02:52 PM
108..Cheers ToryBoy..

It's fine got it done yesterday; you got any comments on the 'economic fails' I listed..?

Or do you just do short posts?

lovebeingaclaret
02-05-2015, 02:53 PM
Why are you not at West Ham Hampstead supporting the lads. You're only 12 miles away!!!!

hampsteadclaret
02-05-2015, 03:05 PM
Because I was umpiring a school under 14 cricket match this morning and earlier this afternoon...is that alright with you?

I was at Crystal Palace, QPR, Arsenal and Chelsea [all away] this season. Were you? A very clear yes or no will do.

It would be trivial and juvenile to start comparing match attendances, and I won't be going there... but trust me it would be a mistake on your part.

lovebeingaclaret
02-05-2015, 03:16 PM
Not sure how to answer your question with a yes or no as there were four possible replies.

But hey up isn't that the same with all your posts.

Or did you mean I had to reply with a simple yes or no four times?

Anyways ... I find it odd how you can continually claim that the Tories are the friends of the rich.

When Labour were in power they charged the rich 40 per cent tax in the whole of their reign excepting the last month, whereas their so called friends have charged them 45 per cent for most of their time in power.

1959_60
02-05-2015, 03:17 PM
Ultra optimistic for anyone to think Labour would be allowed to form a minority Government.

Projected seats at the moment...

Tory 275
Lab 267
SNP 56
Lib Dem 27

Because of the fact that some Northern Ireland MP's will not take their seats in Westminster then 323 seats are required for a majority.

Do you honestly believe that the other parties will sit on their hands and allow Labour to form a minority Government? Why would they do that?

In the event I am certain that Miliband will backtrack and do some kind of deal with the SNP but he will pay a very heavy price from voters south of the border.

The SNP will demand their pound of flesh from Labour for allowing them to form a Government...but you are well aware of that already. Not good.

nil_desperandum
02-05-2015, 03:33 PM
"Do you honestly believe that the other parties will sit on their hands and allow Labour to form a minority Government? Why would they do that?"
They would have no option if Mr Cameron couldn't put something together - which is very doubtful based on your own figures.
Cameron would have to resign unless he could get a Queen's speech through. (Very doubtful).
As the 2nd largest party Miliband could then go to the Queen and offer to form a minority government. If, as I previously said the SNPs turned around and said "we won't support this" then there would be a crisis, but for the reason I've already given the SNP wouldn't risk allowing a Conservative minority administration.
It's by no means unprecedented for a party finishing 2nd to form a minority government. It all depends on the make-up of the opposition to the party first past the post.

hampsteadclaret
02-05-2015, 04:17 PM
113..oi..lovebeingaclaret..you were trying to dig me out about the West Ham match today...I tried to put you right and then I made a very simple request..

I said 'a very clear yes or no will do'.

Then you did that David Cameron political thing on me as in three sentences of hot air, and not actually answering the question..now you appear to have legged it..:(

Let me guess an answer to the question..you missed 3 of those London matches I mentioned but your Mrs took you to London for the Palace match for your 70th birthday. You had some fish 'n chips wrapped in newspaper after the game, and then went back to that bargain price hotel in Stockwell for an 'early night', before catching that 6.30am coach back to Lancashire the next morning.

Am I even close?

lovebeingaclaret
02-05-2015, 04:30 PM
Was that diatribe as a result of your embarrassment of Labour being the rich man's party and the fact that you had no answer to it?

That it took the Tory led coalition to clobber the rich?

I cannot answer your question yes or no when there are yes's and no's. But I will bend your rule and admit I didn't go to Crystal Palace or Chelsea but did the rest plus Tottenham. I might add that I was 250 miles away as against 12 and all the games that were near my home I attended every game. Hope this helps.

hampsteadclaret
02-05-2015, 04:37 PM
The diatribe was just a bit of fun.

I am a lot further than 12 miles away.

lovebeingaclaret
02-05-2015, 05:15 PM
... and your comments regarding tax rates?

hampsteadclaret
02-05-2015, 05:47 PM
I had to log back in for this.

I am going out for a couple of pints right now.

I am entirely happy to talk about tax rates and other aspects of the recent economic record, but it might not be tonight...few more days to go yet.

lovebeingaclaret
02-05-2015, 06:41 PM
Well at least you'll get a bit more beer for your money as a direct result of the Chancellor's present to you.

Just hope you're not a filthy rich Conservative man though cos thanks to this Government you will be paying a lot more tax than with Labour.

nil_desperandum
02-05-2015, 08:50 PM
FTAO Taio, (and some others):
As we agreed, whether the previous govt overspent is a matter of opinion, and as it happens Robert Peston also agrees that it is not clear cut, and has written an interesting article on this subject on the BBC website:
"Members of the Question Time audience became conspicuously grumpy when Ed Miliband said the last Labour government did not over-spend.
So who was right - them or the Labour leader?
Well, they both have a point.
There was a gap between what Labour was spending and what it was receiving in tax revenues in the few years before the great crash and recession of 2008.
But that gap was not massive: sometimes it was a tiny bit bigger than the growth rate of the economy, sometimes a bit smaller; which means there was no significant increase in the ratio of public sector debt to national income or GDP.
Thus in 2007-8, public spending was 40.2% of GDP, compared with tax revenues that were 37.5% of GDP: so the deficit was 2.7% of GDP.

Now there are

1959_60
02-05-2015, 09:17 PM
Good Evening Nil.

Peston continued...

"But Labour wasn't just asleep at the wheel when it came to City regulation. Arguably it was drunk at the wheel - in that it loved the City boom, for generating huge tax revenues that it then lavished on public services.
So the failure to keep the City properly in check was in a sense wilful and therefore doubly wrong."

I remember Vince Cable warning us all about the massive bubble that was sure to burst. Labour poured scorn on him. The Tories were actually calling for less regulation.

I thought that all parties had learned lessons from the crash.

But not Labour apparently.

nil_desperandum
02-05-2015, 09:36 PM
Good evening to you too. (Good to keep these debates civil).
I agree entirely with Peston in his article, but only selected the section that was relevant to the question of whether or not Miliband was right about Labour not overspending.
I'm not saying that I particularly agreed with Labour spending in the Brown years, but it really irritates me that neither Osborne nor Cameron had an issue with the deficit at the time, and then suddenly - after the banking crisis - tried to pin all the blame on Labour overspending.
It is absolutely correct that the Conservatives would have had less bank regulation, so the fact that they have spent the past 5 years blaming the previous administration for all our economic woes is totally dishonest.

JeremyBender
02-05-2015, 11:03 PM
Ah, Robert Peston, aka The Hon. Robert James Kenneth Peston. Another Champagne Socialist.

claretchrish
03-05-2015, 02:19 PM
Any sign of Rowls's list of reasons why zero hours contracts are so good yet? He was very robust in his declarations saying as much and he's had days to use the Internet to search for some, it can't be a lot to ask.

I'd even settle for just a top five.

hampsteadclaret
03-05-2015, 02:44 PM
Don't encourage him back on to CM, it's miles better when he turns his computer off and hibernates.

The way he carries on round here, you'd think he had a 7 figure salary and homes in Monaco and Miami Beach.

A very strange bloke.

taio
03-05-2015, 03:04 PM
Hampstead,

Bizarre that you say i have a go at pretty much everything you put one here and 'I'm up for that all day long' (wtf).

I can barely recall saying anything to have a go at you for months because I don't find anything you have to say remotely interesting (I genuinely didn't and still haven't read your posts 99 and 109). I just recall me responding recently after you saying Kightly had bags of pace because I thought that it was a load of rubbish.

To show you are not a complete liar, can you reference examples of where I've done that in the last say three months - are you up for that (all day long)?

Given what you've said, I presume you think there are bucket loads of examples, so it should be simple and quick for you to do.

But to make it more worth your while - you've proved copying and pasting is one of your key skills in the past in any case - for every three other threads you can cite, during the above time period, I will give £10 to the clarets' youth foundation, a