Johnny Bognor

You could be right, maybe that's why the lefties on here think it's a good idea

Got caught ****ing while sniffing my mate's sister's knickers yesterday. Wouldn't have been so bad but she was still wearing them at the time. He went ballastic. Made the rest of her funeral very awkward for both of us

RE: Clarke + Cable = Dream Team Do I detect a general consensus from both sides that this is a generally good idea?

Love you too x

I agree with the Oxbrige idiots analogy. Right now is not a time for politics, but a time for people with credibility and experience to sort this mess out. People who would take the country with them, through these difficult times. I was kind of hopeful when it looked like there would be a coalition, that Vince Cable's skills would have been better utilised as well. But they did once and looked what happened. He steered the UK away from recession and laid the foundations for the growth that became the golden legacy. Politics aside,he would be the best man for the job, without doubt and right now, this country needs someone of his calibre. Osborne, for me, is a jumped up little ****. At least Dave is likeable in a Blair Mk 2 kind of way. Fair play, Verbal. Many a leftie on here defended Brown to the hilt, despite what he was doing. You are clearly more balanced than I had given you credit for. For me, if I was Dave, I would instill Clarke as Chancellor NOW, with Vince Cable as his number 2. For me, this would be the dream ticket - a Chancellor with a track record of buiding a solid post-recession economy working alongside one of the most respected politicians when it comes to economics. This would give the markets confidence, the people confidence and would ultimatey give hope to all. It is so bleedingly obvious, I cannot see why Dave cannot see it. That is, unless, he is not governing in the interests of the nation afterall?

I can see how that works, but I lease a building (built by a private contractor), for which I don't take ownership, so it is an operating lease, yet I have to state this commitment in my accounts, whilst the govt doesn't (unless I am missing something here).

Yes it was a Tory invention and not to incude the debt was wrong (you see, I can criticise the existing or previous tory goverments where I see fit as I don't have to tow any party line, unlike some on here). I have been trying to find some stats (without success, due to the secrecy surrounding PFI contracts), but i would wager £500 with you right now that the outstanding moneys owed increased significantly under Brown. If I am wrong (which I seriously doubt), I will give you an IOU, pay it off over the next 30 years and not disclose the debt to my Mrs. A kind of JBPFI if you like. To be honest, I would prefer neither. Ken Clarke for me all the way.....the most successful Chancellor in decades. I said in the run up to the election, that had Clarke been made shadow Chancellor, the tories would have won the election without doubt. Gordon 'earned' his reputation by copying Ken for his first few years. They say immitation is the sincerest form of flattery. See above. Ditch Osborne and let a proper Chancellor do the job (despite his poor taste in footwear) I agree BTF, but if you have a financial commitment, it is money you owe which is debt. If I lease a new printer at work, I am contractually committed to paying for it on a rental. At the end of the term, I can take ownership of it if I wish. Businesses have to report on commitments falling due in their statutory accounts, but it seems the govt don't have to, but I guess they make the rules whilst we have to follow them.

The issue I have with PFI is not with PFI in its own right, in all honesty I am probably 50/50 on the issue. For me, the issue is 'hiding' the debt from the all important debt figure. It enables any govt to go on a spending spree and not be held accountable which is exactly what Brown did. If a govt owes money, then that is debt and should be counted.

The commitments to PFI contracts are in the region of £267bn, which is a fair old chunk @ approximately 20% of GDP. Add this to saintdreamer666's numbers and national debt is far higher than when Labour came into power. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/22/pfi-private-finance-refuse-debt True, but the last govt significantly increased the public sector head count (by some 800,000 peope) and thus significantly increased the pensions black hole as a result You see, UM, you're one of the decent lefties on here and you will give credit where credit is due, so fair play. In fact, I would have you down as posting in your hush puppies. Having experience of both sides of the public/private divide has given you an insight many on here don't have (including me).

It was administered by these guys http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Resources/Features/Features-archive/Goodbye-Boiler-Scrappage-Scheme.-Hello-more-ways-to-save-energy

To be fair, we're all paying the price for that

Rubbish, had the trend continued (assuming there was no financial crisis and/or an election), it would have been back to 1997 levels by 2011 (and remember that the 1997 levels were off the back of a recession). You have to ask why pretty much every 'pundit' was talking about it (prior to the crash) and you seem to be the only person that sees it differently. Even the EU gave 'us' a slap on the wrist for it. Remember, that these figures do not include the public sector pension black holes or money for PFI projects. Include this and it is off the scale.

OK, you've changed tack a little bit. Yes, granted that debt (as a percentage) was lower than when Labour came into power, but Brown adopted tory spending plans for the first two years therefore the initial falling debt as a %age of gdp is as much to do with Kenneth Clarke, so do you care to applaud the man in hush puppies? No, didn't think so. However, rather than keeping it down (whilst taking more actual debt on as GDP was growing) Brown then believed he could walk on water and increased it again. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=206 It is there...plain for everyone to see. At least you are not claiming that national debt (as a percentage of GDP) was steadliy falling as it is clear to see that it was steadily rising from 2002 onwards (after removing the interventions brought about by the financial crisis, so you can't blame it all on the bankers).

Yes he was a tory, but just to stir things up he is a University Chancellor and (Verbal will like this) he was involved in the film industry.

But none of these articles include the hidden "not on the balance sheet items" which at the time would have more than doubled the national debt, in real terms and as a percentage of GDP.

I do know the difference, thank you. I thought I would now quote the Guardian to remove any bias http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/jan/19/14 National debt hit historic highs BEFORE the financial crisis, therefore what you stated in your opening post is complete and utter unadulturated ********

Are you completely stark raving mad? Jesus H Christ. The debt did not exist and then it did, but it was declining. Make your own mind up. Plenty of people contradict themselves on here, but normally there is more than an exclaimation mark between. Anyway.....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5097706.stm The defecit was growing BEFORE the financial crisis National Debt was rising BEFORE the financial crisis Even our European friends thought that our defecit was EXCESSSIVE back in 2006 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brussels-delivers-fresh-attack-on-browns-handling-of-budget-deficit-467134.html Now I know there are a few history teachers on here and perhaps they will be able to confirm that the financial crisis started to unfold mid 2007. Jesus, what are they teaching in univerisites these days......... I thought they were teaching people how to think FFS. Perhaps you are better off going into medicine as you will be of no use in the real world. Let me know which hospital you end up working in, just so that I can make sure I avoid it.

But the bit of paper proves nothing. I remember many a **** teacher (degree qualified), so even though you have a history degree, it does not make you a better history teacher. However, if you could tell me how your input has improved the average history grade within your school, then I would be impressed.

Not at all, just waving a bit of paper in front of someones nose, doesn't make you a better person. I was waiting for that :-) Not at all, see point below I get your point and can see how you deduce it as I guess I have been consistent. I have said before (on the tuition fees thread) that I would like to see certain courses subsidised, so I do value education, however on a selective basis - i.e. not all of it for education's sake. I want to see the UK be a world leader and to do that we will need well educated people, but the system needs to be designed in a way that will give the UK the best return on its "investment". An oversupply of soft-studies graduates does not help. I do have intelligent people who work for me (in fact some of them are more intelligent than I'll ever be) but they also have other attributes which are just as important such as personality, communication skills, flair, dedication, humility, inventiveness, creativity and the list goes on. Their academic achievements are just one piece of a complex jigsaw which makes a real star. This fits with your example of the graduate from Havard. She didn't get that responsibility solely due to her degree (athough that got her through the door) as Google employ hundreds of them, but her ability to think beyond the norm and her inventiveness/creativity which goes beyond that bit of paper and makes her stand out from the other graduates at google. Last week I was on a film shoot (you'll be pleased to hear) and there was a young Chinese chap who graduated in film studies at Pompey Uni last summer. He was working for nothing for work experience and I thought, fair play. He contacted local film companies and offered his services for free. He is clearly passionate about film and prepared to make the sacrifices to get into the industry as his bit of paper alone does not guarantee this. With his attitude, I don't think he'll be out of work for long. I guess my view has been formed having seen an abundance of graduates in the last 5 years and many of them have their head in the clouds and/or are distinctly average and to get on, they'll need more than a bit of paper. However, the venom that I display on here is not for people with a bit of paper (as I too have a bit of paper, but maybe not as nice as your bit of paper), but the attitude of people who want to belittle others because they are more intelligent. This type of snobbery does lack class (as I have said before) and it is the snobbery that I have a problem with. It also seems to be a common trait of those with a left political leaning, but I am sure you will point out that it is because people on the left are more intelligent...... I remember a thread about that fairly recently, which shows that the snobbery is not exclusive to this thread. I agree that he was out of his depth for Shadow Chancellor, but nevertheless he is a well respected politician and respected by all quarters. I would wager that in a straight national vote between Johnson and Balls, Johnson would win by a country mile.

Come on Verbal, the intellectual **** swinging isn't exclusive to this thread I am aware that degrees in certain subjects are of merit (particularly those that relate to the professions such as medicine or law). I have doctors and lawyers as friends and not once do they need to mention their qualifications - to them it is irrelevant. Mine was of little merit and I am 4 years behind my plan for world domination as a result. However, the **** swinging has been getting rather tedious and hasn't been exclusive to this thread. The one upmanship and "I am better than you because of my degree" is typical of your average graduate (and yes I did meet plenty outside of my chosen subject) and it is precisely why I didn't choose to socialise with what in my eyes was a bunch of knobs. I almost subscribe to Sturomseysaint's view of students in general. Those of a left persuasion will then spend the rest of their lives ramming it down people's throats when their careers falter and don't reach their full potential.

I should be OK then, as some of your old mates from the waterside will testify ;-)

Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't but Thorpe-Le-Snob, Snobbo, Versnob, Snob-too-far, Snob from the top, Saintsnob666, Anothersnobinsouthsea can't help themselves sometimes. I am glad to say that there is no Fuengirola Snob, so fair pay too you sir.

Paint trophy?

No I didn't conduct a scientific study and apply any form of analysis to it, so although it may not prove anything, it shows that you don't need a degree to be successful. It is clear that humility is not taught in universities these days, which brings me on to another point. Universities are brainwashing people in terms of their earning expectations. Many graduates come through my doors with ridiculous earning expectations and it is only when they see the oxbridge 1st class honours graduates doing data entry for me, that they get brought back down to earth.

Hey Fuengirola, you despise snobs don't you? Does that include intellectual snobs too? Is there room for snobbery in your communist world?