buctootim

Not the Skates "borrow money, buy has-beens, go bust, get relegated" model then? They might have to rethink how much they are going to earn from franchising their idea to world football.

day

Its mostly just the same kind of characters you find on any internet comments section - including a few here. People who get their jollys saying whatever will get a reaction. Sad ****ers.

hitman

Healthcare is the biggest cost by far for most governments - and although I cant remember the exact stats on average around half of the healthcare you receive will be 0-65 and the other half of the spend will be 65 till death at c79. Im not saying they would be sent home if we left - but then we wouldnt send the current EU immigrants home either so nett benefit will be zilch.

Sounds a bit low to me. Half?

A 30 year old Polish cleaner on minimum wage is probably more of a nett contributor (or less of a drag) to the UK economy than a 70 year living in Malaga on their British pension is to the Spanish one. I think if we left and everyone was sent home we wouldnt be any better off. If this government had really got to grips with non EU immigration and the EU was the last uncontrolled issue to fix then there would be a case for leaving. It hasnt, non EU numbers are actually on a upward path again. I just think of all the issues facing the UK EU immigration is relatively minor, when you consider the wider picture and all our expats.

Not really. Hong Kong is like Singapore -big ports, similar population size and density. Singapore does just fine. We could have kept them or sent them independent but we didnt want to damage relations with China. It was politically expedient. We could have shared the Falklands sovereignty with Argentina, but that would have meant giving up rights to a huge slice of Antarctica. That wasnt politically expedient.

Sure, I dont disagree. The majority of EU immigration is young people coming here to work - so paying taxes and using few of the expensive services like health and pensions. They obviously do impact on housing - but its an easy problem to fix - build more houses, it doesnt cost the taxpayer anything. You have to ask why non EU immigration is still three or four times higher than historical average. If the majority of the EU continues to have slow economic growth for years ahead then there is a problem. Atm I see it as us having to pull the train for a while having benefitted from it in the past.

How is that misleading? it clearly shows the stats from 1975 up to date, including the enlargement. For 34 of those 40 years more Brits have gone to live abroad than EU citizens coming here, some 2.5 million out and about 1 million in. I don't remember too many complaints when jobless British workers were going to Germany in the 1980s or that them leaving was driving up British wages and making housing too cheap. A friend of mine currently weekly commutes to Denmark for work so gets paid very nicely there and repatriates the cash to Britain. By far the majority of immigration over the past 40 years has been from outside the EU. Yes of course there has been a spike in EU immigration the past six years or so, but its a relatively minor part of pressure on services. Half the population increase over the past 15 years has been due to higher UK birth and lower death rate. Much of the rest is non EU immigration.

Looks like the Coach house was part of the Fleming Arms and so the Jimi Hendrix gig rumour is true! See this planning application from 1971 to build a 'club bar and dance area' https://planningpublicaccess.southampton.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ZZZZZBOZXT485

Psalm

Im sure National Statistics are grateful for your input. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_425188.pdf

Interesting, thanks! There is a quite a bit of detail there which is counter intuitive - like Clinton has a trust rating of only 10% but is still rated to be far more electable than Sanders - who is seen as trusted but not electable.

Me .

They're pretty hacked off over on Arsenal Mania, mostly with Wenger - but I liked this one "I want to give Lee Mason an extremely thorough enema with a clump of brambles smothered in tabasco, the tubby ******". http://arsenal-mania.com/forum/threads/epl-arsenal-vs-southampton-tuesday-02-02-16-19-45.28809/page-66

Are your family in there too?

Anyone else think Forster seems better now than before his injury? Seems to get down to low balls quicker than before.

First

Interestingly, despite being older Sanders overwhelmingly won the young vote (84% of 17-29 years olds) whilst Clinton pulled in the old.

Voting differently depending on the candidate and whether its a local council election (where parties dont really matter), EU elections using PR, taking into consideration policies or voting tactically on occasion makes sense to me. I fully understand why it wouldn't to you. Blind allegiance regardless of issue or circumstance - unless the leader is someone you didnt vote for, in which you do everything you can to subvert them. Oh to be as principled.

Thats true. Regardless of your political allegiance, its not good for the country /democracy. You support PR?

Sanders seems to have still got his energy and mental agility though. Churchill was Prime Minister at 80 so theres no reason Sanders couldnt be a good President for at least one term. That said if I was voting I'd probably scrutinise more than usual who his Vice President was going to be, just in case.

I loved this part. The worlds largest democracy in action. "the former secretary of state and first lady will beat Bernie Sanders, the 74-year-old senator from Vermont, by two delegates in Iowa. In five precincts the vote was decided by the toss of a coin - all going to Ms Clinton, according to the Des Moines Register. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35468776

Thats a biological whining, unless they set it to wurlitzer music.