um pahars

Going back to the beginning, from my fag packet calculations I would be surprised if we were running at break even. Obviously don't have access to any of the figures (wages & costs changed, "mortgage" interest gone, attendances up), but judging from the gap last time around I still think we're running at an Operating Loss. Net Transfers (in or out) are then on top of this. As for how we're funding that deficit (and any terms), then no idea (apart from it's coming from someone's pocket), and have been interested in some of the snippets here.

The Graduate figure has shown one of the highest rises of all categories, but I do think it has to be taken in context. It is in line with the overall 16-24 yo unemployment rate so it would suggest that a degree is no guarantee of future employment. Just under 50% of 16-17 year olds are unemploymed, but in the 21-24 age group Graduates are still less likely to be unemployed than their peers without degrees (something like 12% v 15%), which indicates there might still be some real benefit. It's a very tough market out there for jobs and the specific Graduate employment market has been hit like many other sub groups. After you strip out the minority of "noddy" degrees (David Beckham's fashion course etc) and also when you accept that a number of areas are over subscribed (when I worked in TV one executive stated that as many people leave Uni each year with a Media degree as are already employed in the TV industry), I do find it strange how we as a country sometimes seem to deride education and its value to society (particularly for the future). Of course, it's not a pre requisite for success and no substitute for hard graft, but an educated workforce & society has to be an asset (even if some of the courses are a tad shallow). I do think we have to look at educating & training (and the split between Uni for all and decent vocational and other training) in a new light and this does include the funding of both, but I'm not sure many other countries would see it as a negative that so many young people are continuing their educational path through University.

Apologies if seen before: http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/world-of-sport/article/29220/ Although I'm not sure everyone was totally happy (note the congratulations for the first goal and guy who is itching to make a tackle as the player goes to score unopposed!!).

Matty could ring up this morning and get his ten!!!!!!! Restrictions now lifted and anyone on the database can get more than one ticket.

We were forever sticking things off balance sheet to hide them in the companies I worked for!!!!!! PS not even sure I'm a leftie (more Ken Clarke meets David Owen type LOL).

I'd happily applaud dear old Ken, much maligned but IMHO a very astute fella and decent Chancellor with a decent record during his tenure.

Is PFI really that big???? Additionally I'm not sure I would hold it against the last Government, when it was first introduced by Major (or whoever in the early 90's). As for Public Pensions, whilst I accept it is "off balance sheet", it's hardly something to whip the last Government with.

Rumours also going round that Murdoch is preparing to swing the axe around Wapping and Rebekkah Wade is up for the chop.

I'm not so sure I'd call it the biggest economic crisis since WW2. If you look at the debt figures here (I accept only one feature of many by which to analyse your claim), then the position pre the sub prime meltdown in 2007/8 was comparable with previous years. Even allowing for billions being pumped in to shoring up banks, overspending etc etc etc and the 2010 figure isn't that bad (particularly when compared to earlier years). http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1950_2010&state=UK&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2010&chart=G1-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=UK National Debt As Pct GDP

I think it depends on what you're shrinking and what you're willing to accept in terms of shrinkage. I personally think any drive for efficiencies (and the money being saved or recycled) should always be welcomed and often agree with some of the things that groups such as Taxpayers Alliance are saying as I often think too much is wasted on initiatives/ventures that people wouldn't spend their own money on. After that you start getting in to ideological arguments. Defence (wink, wink), health, protection and education make up just under half of the Total Government Spend so if you're going to cut here, then someone will probably get hurt somewhere along the line. I'm not one for a bloated and inefficient public sector, but I can appreciate that a decent one contributes much to our society.

Have to say Johhny I think you have missed the point in the latest twist of the argument (IMHO). I actually agree that a degree (or any other qualification) isn't the be all and end all. However, in the context of trying to have a debate with the rather ridiculous Dune and his warped view on teaching it is relevant. Some of his arguments are so nonsensical that it beggars belief.

That's a rather strange interpretation/observation of what people have posted on this and other threads. Which posts and posters do you think exhibit that point of view???

Indeed, his first interest is to succeed and with that success comes reward in monetary and other terms. However, alongside my somewhat sentimental and romantic notion that we should also engender a warm feeling about "our" Club is the thought that in doing so it could actually make business sense in that it might generate some positive PR and a feelgood vibe. Would this transfer in to £££'s and could this be quantified, I don't know, but for the sake of massaging a few egos I'd give it a punt (neither of the two "breaking stories" seem to be costing us anything).

Well someone needs to be teaching history to these 16 year olds or else they won't get on the EB tables. What would be your minimum qualification for a History Teacher in a secondary school and what would they be doing with their students? I have to say that I find your views on education to be as suprficial as Gove's.

You may have misread my post as I did not suggest that he was saying the right things. Instead I am suggesting he is saying the things he thinks "Middle England" and Daily Mail readers would like to hear. He is falling in to the same trap that befell Labour in that soundbites, spin and no substance and fawning to an expectant audience will only end in tears. Scratch beneath the surface and there is nothing there. Gove is quick to make these sweeping generalisations and very slow to substantiate them. I'm still trying to get my head around just PC nonsense he believes needs to be weeded out, Can you help?

Without being too harsh, I would venture that the high opinion in which you hold yourself is not mirrored in the real world. HTH. I would suggest that it is eminently possible to act professionally and honourably in the Teaching profession and adopt a fair and balanced approach, no matter what your political leaning. Just as i would say the same for many other professions (inc Police Force, Civil Servants, judiciary). Please don't judge everyone by your own rather low standards.

Indeed and I agree with you. Gove just seems to be saying what he thinks Daily Mail readers would like to hear. All spin, but no substance.

If there is one analogy that I will always struggle with, it's the comparison of a Football Club with a normal high street business. It's the very fact that they are so different and that a football club is at the cornerstone of the fabric of a community's that makes it so special to all of us (and why we get so passionate about it).

And as well as comparing Lawrie with Dalglish who was happy to voice his concerns about the direction of "his" club, you could also draw parallels with the way in which Bobby Charlton acted when United were having diificulties, in that he kept a diplomatic silence. Not saying either is the right way and there are probably merits to both. However, I would say that whichever path they have chosen to take shouldn't preclude them from being held in the highest regard for their past efforts at the Club. I struggle to see why it has to be a Cortese or McMenemy/Matty way. Surely there is a compromise here where all the sets of egos can be massaged and channelled in to a positive for the Club and its supporters.

What is this agenda??? I am missing something sinister??? I would venture that whilst in hindsight Matty is embarrassed by what turned out to be a dud I don't really think he would harbour any grudge about the Club being saved. Certainly, in the context of where we were at the time I struggle to understand why he should be hung out to dry for trying to do something in our darkest hour. I'm not sure what Lawrie has lost out on since Cortese arrived back on the scene. His ambassadorial role and the money that went with it disappeared under the previous regime and at worst he thinks he is being frozen out of being held up in the high regard he believes he should be.

I think a distinction has to be made between hangers on and honouring the legends that made our Club so great (at least to me anyway). I quite agree that the hangers on should be made to pay, but I think you could come up with a list of those who we should happily invite along on these "big" occasions without it running in to much past double figures. Matty should always be welcomed (as should Lawrie IMHO - and yes I know he can be an egotistical blighter at times)and on big FA Cup days I would always be more than happy to give prode of place to any of the Cup winning side. By all means make them sing for their supper i.e. walk and talk in the corporates, pitchside, to the press, down in the Itchen afterwards.

Echos the story I hear a while back when he was dropped for Oxo and then disappeared off the radar for a few weeks. I was up for trying to win him round and getting him invovled in the squad (particularly with Lallana's absence), but if this is the case then ship him out PDQ or let him train with the Youth Team and make sure he has no contact with any of the first team squad.

I certainly think an understanding of our history, world history, culture etc and a certain number of established facts would be in "my" curriculum, but it would certainly not be back to Victorian times as Gove would appear to be saying. As someone much more eloquent than me put it: "Many of the facts our children will need to learn do not yet exist. The best we can do is teach them how to discover them" Backed up a quote from the video "Did You Know?": "the top 10 in-demand jobs in 2010 didn’t exist in 2004… We are currently preparing students for jobs that don’t yet exist… Using technologies that haven’t been invented… In order to solve problems we don’t even know are problems yet.”

Indeed. Why can't any of the Political parties accept that their adversaries may indeed have some workable policies and solutions? It seems to have gone all playground with many debates being "whatever they're saying or doing, we're doing the opposite".

Me too!!!! Just what is it that he has seen or thinks exists that leads him to such a sweeping statement. I personally have a great aversion to some of the over the top Health & Safety rules/legilation (that guy who got done for taking kids sledging seemed unfair) and have no real time for the petty "PC" brigade, but that's not the same as wanting Political Correctness out of the curriculum (just what is it in the curriculum that he is talking about?). Just like his English Baccalaureate curriculum, it sounds catchy, might go down with the Daily Mail and its readers, but what exactly does it mean. I'm not holding my breath!!!!!