pap

Is it really that inconvenient though? First, anyone with a brain will recognise that you can't use 1946 as a model for what we do in 2012. Second, the type of change that was being made then was far more profound than what is being suggested here. Perhaps more inconvenient is the fact that it's not just the BMA who are opposing the Government on this. Almost every professional body has come out against the bill. And if you really want to talk inconvenient truth, perhaps its worth bearing in mind that anyone who disagrees with this policy just doesn't get a say.

Might not always be the best people, but they aren't even being consulted (largely because their professional opinion doesn't mirror the Govt's). I'd certainly argue (perhaps even calling The Cat's evidence in as an exhibit) that a significant number of political figures stand to gain from a larger corporate component of the Health Service. Personally, I worry about the ethical considerations when involving big business in the NHS, especially as it puts two requirements in conflict. Some will argue that you can make people better AND make a profit, but much of the evidence from over the pond suggests that big medical and big pharma are more interested in managing conditions than finding an outright resolution to people's health issues.

To me the issue is somewhat simpler. Credibility is surely a measurement of whether the things you do match the things you say.

I've been on demos myself. While I'd agree with some of this, a couple of qualifications, if I may. First, most demos I've ever been on have been massively peaceful. Lot of people walking through London and shouting slogans. That's actually pretty boring for telly cameras, so they end up focusing their attention on the few greebos having a tussle with the OB. No doubt that some of the demonstrators are right off the charts when it comes to their place on the political spectrum, but most of them are normal people with a genuine grievance.

I ended up p*ssing on the floor in the end. If you're going to be accused of a crime...

If you are a stand-wiper and a wet-wiper, beware! If any of the excess water hits the floor in a public environment, anyone going in afterwards will simply assume that some filthy animal has done a dirty golden protest on the floor ( for some reason, they never take the time to lick/sniff it for confirmation). They will then send a company-wide email asking very kindly for people to stop urinating on the floor.

Thank you for sharing this, Super Michael. This comes on the day in which the Conservatives have arranged a meeting with the big movers and shakers of the NHS. The only precondition? That anyone turning up must be in complete and total agreement with the Government's p*ss-poor plan for the top-down reorganisation of the NHS. The upside is that they'll have very small conference room requirements. Good to know in these cash-strapped times!

I don't think that anyone is making the case that the UK Government is working in isolation on its credit rating. If it was, then we could just give ourselves a great credit rating and be done with it Thing is, the Coalition hasn't been doing the right things. Economic targets have been missed, and a great deal of energy is going into initiatives such as the top-down reorganisation of the NHS, which wasn't anything anybody voted for. Further, while I'm happy to concede that the Government is not working in isolation, it does have power over the things it says and I daresay, a lot more information about external factors which might affect the things they say. It seems to me that this is the one promise they've not yet broken and that the cost of keeping this promise has exacted a heavy toll on those affected by the cuts. Indeed, the government holds up the AAA rating as a reason why these cuts are justified. Credibility is a very simple issue at heart:- Do we trust what is being said? The Coalition government, external factors and all, has said time and time again that we will retain our AAA status, and that they have a plan to ensure this happens. Surely it's valid to question a government's credibility and its plans if and when they fall short of their stated aims.

I really do enjoy debating with you. However, things will go a lot smoother if you comment on the things I've said, not the things you imagine I might be thinking. Not being funny Alps, but I'm hardly sparing on ye olde word count. If something is unclear, at least do me the honour of seeking clarification rather than adding bits of your own. Alternatively, you can just read what I've written ( although I fear for your post count if you're going to start reading what people say before commenting ).

Whether you like it or not, Alps - after all the support that the US has thrown Israel's way over the years, even the course you suggest (which, btw, I think is the right one) will be considered tacit approval.

I think so, yes. I accept that all Governments are, to an extent, participants in the larger economic system and that there are understandably things outside of their control. That doesn't mean that the policies that they make on a local level don't have an impact. Equally, there are governments who have made much better use of their resources, and do not have the same problems that we do. The Scottish nationalists are currently looking at Norway as a model for their own financial sustainability. Why? Because with a broadly similar set-up to Scotland, Norway has contrived a way to make themselves debt-free by using the profits of their natural resources for the good of the economy. I accept that Norway is not the UK, and may not even be that comparable to Scotland. However, there's no mistaking that their government can claim a lot of economic credibility for the country's rude financial health. So while you raise a good point - that we haven't had many governments that you could call economically credible, that doesn't mean that it is not possible. And as I've said before, the Coalition has stated the importance of the AAA credit rating time and time again. That being the case, isn't is reasonable to question their credibility if and when they fail on one of their key claims?

Thanks for the clarification on what a negative outlook actually means, Kingsland Codger. We can dispute the 30% ( I happen to think it slightly higher ), but that's almost a 1/3 chance of getting downgraded. You are quite right to pull me up on the fact that even that doesn't necessarily constitute "likely", and I'm more than happy to be proved wrong by events. My personal view is that we're not doing enough to generate growth, and though I fully expect the economy to receive a bump from the spectacle of the Olympics, its difficult to see how growth will be achieved over the long term. Indeed, there is a piece in the FT Adviser today, calling for radical growth strategies. Quote:- Ruth Lea, economic adviser to the Arbuthnot Banking Group, said Moody’s change of Britain’s credit outlook from stable to negative implies that Britain has a one in three chance of a formal downgrade of its coveted triple-A credit rating over the next 12-18 months. Moody’s stated that the key drivers of the reassessment were the increased uncertainty regarding the pace of fiscal consolidation in the UK due to materially weaker growth prospects over the next few years, with risks “skewed to the downside”. It claimed that any further abrupt economic or fiscal deterioration would put into question the government’s ability to place the debt burden on a downward trajectory by 2015-2016. Although the UK is outside the euro area, Moody’s also said the high risk of further shocks within the currency union were exerting negative pressure on the UK’s rating given the country’s trade and financial links within the euro area. Ms Lea said: “Moody’s endorsed the fiscal austerity programme of the Chancellor, who has very little fiscal wriggle room in the forthcoming Budget [21 March].” So essentially, our present rating is based on us adhering to our plans (already shot by 158Bn) and not making a great deal of change in March's budget. Problem is, we're already seeing the problems caused by taking money out of the economy - one of those is a lack of growth. If we need growth to escape our current financial predicament, yet have no mechanism to generate such growth, I'd argue that a 1/3 chance of being downgraded is optimistic. Many opposition politicians would agree.

How can you say Saints fans people are obsessed about Pompey? Sure, you can point to the Pompey Takeover Saga thread ( SWF's most popular-ever thread, and it isn't even about Saints ). You can also point out the folly of singing Pompey songs in the North. Or the innumerable Facebook/Twitter comments from Saints fans gloating about Pompey's current predicament. Not quite sure that you can call the unrelenting coverage about Pompey FC from Saints fans an obsession, tho

Short and sweet from a (presumed) supporter of the current set-up. Would sir care to qualify his opinion? In most things, assessing whether someone is doing a good job involves weighing up their performance, good or bad. What have the Conservatives done to tip the balance to secure the trousers' seal of approval?

Great answer to a different question, Andy Forgive me if I didn't make myself clear ( I probably didn't ), but I was referring to the credibility of the Coalition, rather than the chances of it breaking up. I do agree that the two issues are linked at the hip. I happen to agree with a lot of what you say here, but surely it is credibility from the public that matters. The AAA credit rating is in many ways, the Coalition's stake in the ground, parroted out again and again as the indicator of how well they're doing. Take that away, and what 'successes' does this Government have to draw on?

There have been numerous rumblings over the past week about a potential downgrade of Britain's credit rating. Numerous organs of the press reported that Moodys were considering Britain's AAA status, citing a negative outlook for the country amongst its reasons for new thinking [Indy article from yesterday]. The rhetoric out of the Coalition government has been mighty on this issue. Unemployment at highest levels for a generation? It's ok! We have a triple A credit rating. Negative growth and the chances of a double dip-recession? Triple A credit rating will save the day. In short, the current Coalition government has placed a great deal of stock in its retention of favourable borrowing costs, using it as an indicator that Government policy is doing the correct job, even though the facts on the ground show something completely different (158Bn of unplanned borrowing, anyone?). We now look likely to lose triple AAA status in the short to medium term. If this happens, does the Coalition have any credibility left on economic matters?

I've only just seen this, so you'll have to forgive me for replying out of order, so to speak. Thing is, it's difficult to argue with someone when:- a) they characterise your entire post as drivel. b) they bafflingly draw the wrong conclusions from the verbose qualification provided. To clarify then, I'm not saying that China as the next superpower is necessarily a good thing. As you point out yourself, they are presently vetoing action against Syria when I think we can both agree that Assad's regime is doing despicable things to Syrians. In a sense, that hardly matters. China will be, if it isn't already, a global superpower. Further, the US's "economic might" is being propped up in large part with loans from China. Hmm. Doesn't sound too mighty to me. Let's veer onto foreign perception, shall we? China rightly attracts criticism for the heavy clampdown in student demonstrations in 1989 and its attitude to Tibet and Taiwan. I could enumerate all the coups and illegal invasions that the US have started, but we've already done that in relation to Iran. Am I saying that China wouldn't be as much as a bully as the US when it eventually reaches parity on a military level? Of course not, but the US has the disadvantage of being in the position where they have already done their meddling, and they'll be judged accordingly. It's not really a case of good guys versus bad guys. If you want that, I would suggest any recent Hollywood film. If you want to understand geopolitics, you need to be able to put yourself in the shoes of those who would be involved, whether they're on your "good guy" list or not.

Nope, unfortunately just the things that have been said by Government representatives, etc. William Hague was on the Andrew Marr show explicitly warning against the prospects of Israel conducting a first strike, so I'm not entirely sure that this is a sentiment that is an exclusive concern of one side of the political spectrum.

More on the Iran situation from Radio 4's Today Programme. Both the US and the UK are extremely averse to attack. Apparently, Israel are getting to the point where they might. That will complicate things apparently, as the US, for internal political reasons, won't be able to condemn a first strike - so they're in the position where they either condone Israel's activity or actively support it.

Watched the second half with Ms pap. First thing she said when I started watching the game is "these are dirty b*stards" ( you'll have to forgive the scouse, I do ). Few comedy moments. First, the own goals. Brighton would have one that game 4-3, if it didn't matter what end you put the ball in. Also, I love the little League 1 champions thing they wear on their shirts. Is that mandatory, or do clubs have the choice to do it? Either way, I doubt too many Championship sides will be spooked by it. Liverpool definitely wouldn't have been. A bit of grudging respect for Gus in his interview at the end. He must have been jabbed by some kind of truth serum, as he plainly admitted that Brighton were not ready for the Prem. On this evidence, really not difficult to argue.

Hehe, the sort of players he is looking to attract reminds me of early football management sims, namely the ones where the talent would just go to any club, irrespective of reputation

Hehe. Wasn't going to say anything, but the missus did make a comment when the vox pops were on. "I've lived in Southampton. There are some alright looking blokes there. Why have they chosen these three?"

Unquestionably, but how many Saints fans want to assume we don't go up this year? Speculating on the consequences of failure is all well and good, but given the start that the team has made, at this point, I will be disappointed if we do not achieve promotion. Most fans would have taken a top-half consolidation finish at the start of the season. The team has raised expectation through the performances, results and league position. I think most fans would be disappointed if we failed to achieve promotion. So while it is a question that is worth asking, most organisations plan for success. Your hypothetical starting position, that Saints don't win promotion, is a pretty depressing prospect, and I'm confident that the entire question of who we don't want to face in the Championship will be moot by May.

Didn't actually mind the fact that we got so little game coverage. It was nice to get an inside view of the ground before and after, and even the vox pops were pretty good. This is very much the limelight slot of the show. Good to be in it. That said, really looking forward to the SaintsPlayer coverage. This might be a FULL 90 job.

Much respect to Steve Claridge for his input throughout. Keeps saying nice things about Saints, brutally honest about the Pompey situation.