trousers

We deserve to go into half time all square here. Which of course means they'll score...

Chelsea gone up a gear

Boufal having a decent game

Get in!!!! Romeu!!!

We're playing quite well now

Game over

@ChelseaFC Team to face Southampton: Courtois; Azpilicueta, David Luiz, Cahill ©; Moses, Kante, Matic, Alonso; Fabregas, Diego Costa, Hazard. #CFC subs: Begovic, Ake, Terry, Chalobah, Willian, Pedro, Batshuayi. #CFC

Pompey mathematics (truncating trailing zeros off amounts owed) can be highly contagious

https://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?58205-Saints-vs-Man-City-Build-Up&p=2478850#post2478850

There's been two Portsmouth Football Clubs in recent history. The one before 2012 and the new one after 2012. Tut tut, what short memories they have.

Myne auto-wrongs all the tyme.

Mike Kane. Labour's Education spokesman. I know politicians of all hues are experts at avoiding the question but that was an absolute masterclass from him. https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=mike%20kane&src=typd

Official announcement: https://southamptonfc.com/news/2017-04-21/announcement-signing-southampton-nathan-tella

Pretty much nail on head IMO. Cheers for posting.

2010: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7165000/conservative-manifesto.html "A Conservative government will act now on debt to get the economy moving. We will deal with the deficit more quickly than Labour, so that mortgage rates stay lower for longer with the Conservatives."

I could be wrong (for a change) but I believe their core aspiration was to reduce the deficit rather than the debt per se. You obviously need to turn the deficit into a surplus before the debt starts coming down from the mega high levels they inherited. Are you suggesting they should have deployed even more "living within our means" measures over the last 7 years than they have done thus far in order to have brought the deficit down at a faster rate? One accepts that they haven't cleared the deficit as quickly as they'd hoped. Maybe they haven't been 'nasty' enough....? or maybe they should have tried squeezing more than c.25% of the country's tax receipts out of c.1% of the richest people in the land...? Edit: just skim read their 2015 manifesto and it did indeed contain the aspiration to 'clear the deficit by the end of the parliament', so there was never a pledge to "cut the UKs debt pile" as such. The debt was always going to grow whilst the deficit still existed (which it could still have done under their manifesto pledge until the last minute of the last hour of the last day of the parliament)

Indeed. Anyway, back to this...

Now there's a cunning plan...

Indeed. Which is why (IMO) the witch hunt against Clegg's tuition fees "u-turn" was illogical. Manifestos are a list of pledges/promises/aspirations that parties say they will put in place if they win the election outright. No one won the 2010 election outright ergo the manifestos ceased to be applicable thereafter (that's simple logic). When a coalition is formed you then come up with a compromise 'manifesto'. I'm not a member of the Nick Clegg fan club but the demonising of him and the lib dems over the tuition fees "promise" says more about the intellect of the demonisers than the supposed demons. In my humble opinion of course

Mods - how do I report this post? I'm fed up (as no doubt you are too) of people accusing certain posters of trolling when we all know there aren't any trolls on this forum. All these so called "trolls" are doing is expressing an opinion without any thinly veiled agendas or desire to wind people up whatsoever. Thanks.

IIRC, the (main) Tory 'excuse' for not being able to fulfil that particular aspiration was because they didn't anticipate the UK's economic performance outstripping most (all?) EU countries, and much of the rest of the world, quite as much as it ended up doing in the 5 years or so after the financial crash of 2008. And, in order to sustain said growth, we needed to supplement the UK workforce with manpower from further afield. That, coupled with the natural tendency for EU citizens in countries whose economies are performing badly to migrate to other EU countries where the economy is more buoyant. In other words, the Tories' argument was that they were a victim of their own success in recovering the economy as well as they did. Obviously their explanation is open to challenge and/or ridicule (as you'll witness on here after me writing this post ), and is no doubt at least partially flawed logic, but all I'm highlighting is they probably didn't wake up one morning after the 2010 election and think: "Ah...I know... let's just ignore our manifesto aspiration and encourage a load of economic migrants to come to the UK just for a laugh"... that's the sort of thing Tony Blair would do...

I'm going to stick my neck out and predict that, contrary to all the polls, the Tories won't win an overall majority... You heard it here first (and probably last)

Are those two stances mutually exclusive though? On one hand there is the goal of ending free movement and on the other hand there is the acknowledgement that such a massive change in policy will obviously have to be transitionary. Was anyone really bereft of the common sense that would have led them to believe otherwise...?

Behave. Blackbridge Cross Borders is a massive worldwide company.... https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09055077/filing-history/MzE2MzY1NTIyMGFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0