bridge too far

What's that got to do with the price of fish? Most GPs don't want more control. A few weeks ago there was a lot of coverage of my GP practice, falling as it does in Dave's constituency, as the partners absolutely don't want this 'control'. And it certainly won't make the service more efficient and cheaper. Quite the reverse in fact. What Tim said about the internal market is absolutely spot on and this transfer of control will only exacerbate the situation.

Shame you didn't watch this afternoon's match then. He was far from defensive and absolutely wiped the floor with Davydenko who has been in the world top ten for the past 7 years or so and a Grand Slam semi-finalist on a number of occasions. Murray beat him 1, 1 and 2. Of course clay and hard court play tends to be more defensive than grass but his tactics and mindgames with his opponent were breathtaking today.

How are you benchmarking this? Especially when we remember that, until recently, our NHS for example ranked in the highest bracket for efficiency, outcome and value for money as well as patient satisfaction Every service, public or private, can improve (think RBS computer glitch this week). But quite how you measure 'far far better' I'm not sure.

Going round in circles again, aren't we. If people paid their due taxes we WOULD bring in more money. But it's far more convenient to apportion blame elsewhere instead of dealing with an issue that would hit Dave and Georgie's buddies hardest.

He did say 'at the moment'. AFAIK Fred Perry is no longer with us. And when he was, it was an amateur game where money didn't matter and only gentlemen played. It's a whole different ball game now.

As are many people when they face up to someone who is ranked higher than they are.

As his ranking would suggest

Two more UK players through and Murray is absolutely demolishing Davydenko

wipes

LOL! Andy Murray and he's broken his opponent's serve already - he's playing Davydenko who until a couple of years ago was world no. 3

No. 4 male in the world is in action right now. A bit of a star I think.

Two of the five UK women are still in the competition. Three of the five UK men are still in the competition.

I think it's a bit of both actually. The right wing of his party is unhappy at the kowtowing to the Liberals so he's trying to keep them happy by 'cracking down' on benefits. However his proposals are for after the next election and, in all honesty, I can't see them getting into power on their own. The Liberals wouldn't tolerate these measures if they were to be in coalition again after the next election. I think he's also trying to deflect the whole tax evasion issue (chances are some members of his front bench engage in these matters) and to get people talking about things other than the omnishambles and constant U turns.

The boss (Hester?) should go. That's what happens when there's a boo-boo lower down the food chain, isn't it?

That tunnel you're looking through? It's getting so narrow it'll close up soon

Isn't another difference between Rangers and PFC the fact that HMRC were able to force Rangers into liquidation because they were the largest creditor, given that the Football Creditors Rule doesn't apply in Scotland? Or am I getting muddled here?

Now, now Trousers. You know VAT is a regressive tax http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/01/04/why-vat-is-regressive/ So what happens to the poor (quite literally) people who don't currently pay tax because their wages are so low or they're pensioners? They'll go from paying nothing in income tax to paying a big percentage of their income in VAT (domestic fuel tax is currently 5% - so a 15% hike there as one example. Another would be food).

I think that the event was sponsored / paid for by the Festival Partners (shown at the bottom of the official site) and the BBC just broadcast it. In the same way as they are broadcasting Wimbledon right now. They're not funding the event, just showing it. Just as they did the Euro 2012 competition. Why don't we just scrap television and leave it up to the individual to attend and the rest of us know nothing about it, eh?

There's a search bar at the top right hand side of the page - I just put in the towns I was interested in. But it is very slow ATM

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resourcesforprofessionals/neglect/statistics_wda89685.html 10%

How are, for example, school leavers unable to get work supposed to 'contribute'? Actually, that statement's a bit wrong as everyone contributes to some extent unless, of course, they never, ever buy anything.

I've just spent a good half hour browsing old pics of Southampton and other places I've lived in. Well worth a look http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/

I just did (maybe you have to be a FB user though)

Wouldn't it be good if football in England was managed with as much probity as in Scotland http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18582965 Add to this the refusal of two Rangers' players to play for NewCo and the possibility that Rangers might not be allowed to play in the SPL and I start to wonder why the English game is so impotent

Benefit claimants are not all 'slobs'. Many of them are there through no fault of their own - being made redundant for example. And it's not right to just talk of 'single mums'. As I pointed out earlier, unless things have changed, it takes two to make a baby but I don't see so much criticism levelled at 'single dads'. But it's the welfare of the children in families that lose benefits that concerns me most. It can't ever be right that a child goes hungry or homeless through no fault of its own. Taking it to its logical conclusion, we'd begin to see scenes similar to those in Greece where children are just being abandoned because their parents can't afford to raise them - parent who probably had jobs that covered their needs and then lost them because of the dire economic situation there. So many people just about manage on their incomes these days that to lose that income is to lose everything.