pap

So if that's true, how did the human race ever get started? Stock investments in mammoth hunting firms? A portfolio down at Ugg's cave? I don't believe that you need to create wealth to feed yourself. You just need food, a mouth and some working limb to shove it in ( doesn't even need to be your own! ). Your housing argument is equally crap when held up to historical behaviour. Did our cavemen forebears have to get a mortgage for that nifty little granite number in the nice location? Your arguments only work if you pretend that human history started with central banks and couldn't continue in any other way. I'll take your 300 years and raise you the rest of human history.

My youngest daughter went on a school trip to Everton FC. The bloke who showed them around gleefully pointed out the massive differences between home and away dressing rooms. The home dressing room is sound-proofed, for example. The away dressing room is deliberately not; he reckoned it intimidates the away players.

Which real world? This western-centric worldview that you're conflating as the real world now, where this artificial idea of wealth is all that seems to matter to you? Or perhaps a little further afield, or a little further into our own past, where feeding and housing yourself and your loved ones was number one priority. You're treating the financial system as a point of truth, Sergei. The irony is that there's nothing real about it.

Interestingly (and I'm not sure how much stock you'd hold in this), the Belgians had a real spate of UFO incidents in the early nineties. They even went to officially confirm them (but not confirm that they were aliens )

Sergei, when it comes down to it, wealth is being created out of thin air. That's what quantitative easing is and what the whole financial services industry is about. Something from nothing more than belief. You're not talking about basic needs. You're talking about wealth as if it's the be-all and end-all. We need three things to be able to tell the corrupt banking community to go do one. 1) Food/water security 2) Energy security 3) Political will. Get the first two sorted, and this wealth that you keep on going on about is meaningless. I wasn't expecting a quick fix, but it would have been very nice to see some real political bravery (dune's point about the EU being the elephant in the room is bang on). We've seen neither, and you're attempting to defend our economy by saying "look at Spain", you give a great indication as to the quality of your argument ( I suppose the 14 years of Partido Popular-led politics don't count toward your left-leaning assessment ).

I don't think I've missed the core theme of this government. It's basically to do as many favours for themselves and their mates in business as possible - while passing the bill and/or blame onto everyone else. Appreciate that you're basing your numbers on electoral performance, but I'm not sure they're appropriate to this situation. While Labour were in power, the Tory vote grew with each general election. That'll comprise of a lot of floating voters, plus people who thought that the Conservatives would be an effective bulwark against Europe. Turns out they haven't been effective on anything save mudslinging. They couldn't even get a majority. Their plans on the economy have proved to be completely wrong, and despite the Euro-sceptic Tories claiming it's the "wrong time" for an EU referendum, they're perfectly happy to start carving up the NHS and giving to big medical - even though they said the complete opposite before the election. When it comes down to it, the only things that the Tories have "done" for their voters is attack the usual suspects. I hope that satisfies Tory voters in some way, because when they have to pay triple for their kids to study, get less in tax credits, pay more in tax and are still worse off, they're sure as sh!t going to need some satisfaction.

Does this mean Dalek will start supporting Forest instead of Jerez Industrial?

I do wonder how many hard-core Tory voters there actually are. The Tories got around 35% of the vote in the 2010 general election with a swing toward them. That was back when they were presenting themselves as tree lovers or hoody huggers and hadn't made any unpopular decisions. The only thing that they're successfully doing is playing divide and rule. "We back the workers, they back the shirkers"? For f**k sake. That's not even Cameron's own line. He had to get his little lapdog Andrew Bridgen to field him the opportunity just so he could parrot Thatcher's rhetoric. Repeats from the 1980s. Sounds about right. The little Tory monkeys lap this low grade demagoguery up. Scroungers on the dole, or the immigrants, or any of the fear-based politics that seems to be the Conservative stock in trade. It flips little switches in their brains - confirms all the stuff they ever thought. It's not remotely true, or presented with any degree of proportion - but it plays well to public anxieties. I'm not discounting a Tory victory in 2015; the British people have swallowed sh*t and been told it was steak before. There's no guarantee that turkeys won't vote for Christmas. However, I think the Tories have managed to annoy just about everyone bar certain pensioners and people in the now-defunct 50% tax bracket. His government has been tainted by claims of being out of touch with the public and overly concerned with the interests of the wealthy - and not just in the usual places. Even traditional Tory media has railed against this Government. Labour know that people have got short-term memories when it comes to politics, which is probably why Miliband was doing his best to bust out soundbites in the last PMQs of this Parliament. The Tories will no doubt fight a dirty campaign; say that the Lib Dems were holding them back, etc - but they'll also have five years of decisions to account for. The decisions have not been good.

Have Pompey actually been admitted to League One yet? How long do they realistically have left to get their sh*t together?

Southern Cross springs to mind. But yeah, it'll pretty much go down that way.

Winky thing aside, completely correct. There are numerous PFI horror stories to mull over, and any politician voting to bring private sector into areas like healthcare and prisons has betrayed the people he or she serves. That includes the last lot who rolled into Downing Street masquerading as Labour politicians, but lets not pretend that the Tories wouldn't have done this anyway. They've got a real bone-on for NHS privatisation. Personally, I don't think it's morally right to make money from incarceration or healthcare. You need prisoners for the former, and sick people for the latter. In the majority of cases, 'profit' is derived by coming in under your allocated government budget, which means cost-savings, basically.

Richard Branson's Virgin Care company is the preferred bidder to take over the running of core NHS services in Devon. There is a Guardian article here, but I actually knew this was in the wind some time ago. I was contacted by a recruitment agent that explained how Virgin Care will be making their money. Essentially, they'll be given the same pot of cash that the NHS would have got. Any savings they make within that = profit. Now, it may transpire that the public sector has simply got this wrong the entire time, and that better, more affordable healthcare can be obtained through Branson's outfit. Alternatively, some might be worried that shareholder interests might trump patient welfare. Either way, this is a fairly prominent example of big business supplanting the public sector. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this bankrupt NHS trust ends up being farmed out to the private sector too.

G4S Olympic security recruitment 'utterly chaotic', according to former police sergeant who withdrew his application. This bit is particularly concerning:- Hmm. Private company with large security contract at major international sports event looking for cheap labour. The vetting coming after training sounds a bit sussed too. G4S look like a company trying to cut corners. Their inept performance does make me wonder about the diligence (or lack thereof) they may have applied in other areas. What could possibly go wrong, eh?

Bill Hicks on Jay Leno. He also had a lot to say on UFOs (even did a UFO tour, as I recall).

I take it you haven't seen the stunningly accurate and utterly believable story of Independence Day? That's pretty much exactly what they do (sans the lager).

Wouldn't be surprised at all if he ends up taking it. Tailor-made position for Redknapp's "chuck cash at the team" approach.

I'd love to see an alien spacecraft land*. Would pretty much poke a finger in the eye of any religion with a creation myth. "And lo, on the eighth day, God made a bunch of galaxies, planets and aliens - which he didn't bother to write down". (* although I might poo myself a bit)

Reading your fishing posts is like living near to an airport. You notice the massive noise initially, but after a while, you just get used to it. Part of the furniture, if you will.

It's good to know that Chris Moyles weight is important and that there are people who care enough to track it.

Fairly sure my funeral will be well attended. Still have most of my mates from school, come from a big family and a good proportion of the delegation would turn up "to be sure"

PMQs is worth a watch this week. Cameron proper losing it.

Tim - I'm a massive traditionalist in that I love our ancestral titles. I'm just not a fan of how they get handed out. I'd much prefer this sort of reform, based on service to one's country, than what we have now, where peerages are created for cynical reasons or handed out in return for favours.

Fellow traveller caught by the same snare. A-ha, new posts on Zaha! Something changed? No

At the moment, there is no public input as to who becomes a Lord, and the peerages are for life. Life meaning life, not this short term 15 year nonsense.

What a terrifying idea. Hopefully, there aren't that many. You don't know that. Or that. Nope. They owe their position to the diligence of a sperm. That's somehow better? Indeed not. Who needs a job when you're born into wealth? Would you let a barking mad person serve your beer? Look after your kids? That may happen, but it also provides an excellent opportunity for smaller parties to have a voice in the Lords. If the Lords goes on the popular vote (which the party list system essentially is) then no party will get a majority. The yes men argument doesn't really stack up if they can't collectively overturn everyone else. Yep, it's a shame. I think a big part of the problem is that Labour really doesn't know what it is. Depending on which faction has been in charge, different people have come to the forefront. I haven't been particularly impressed with the likes of the Hazel Blears or Harriet Harmans of this world. Yvette Cooper is their brightest female prospect. The Conservatives have done no better since Thatcher. The only distinguishing things about Teresa May are her rank incompetence, rapid ageing abilities and the fact that she shares her name with a porn star. We've talked about Warsi, a complete disaster. Louise Mensch is probably the Tories' best female shout in the age of TV debates, and even she comes across as plastic, heartless and clueless. The Tories haven't managed to produce another Thatcher either.