Lord Duckhunter

The simple fact is that enough money is collected in tax to look after the very poorest and most needy in this country. The reason people have to live on this pathetic amount is that the money is redistributed too thinly. People are receiving payments from the state who don't need it. Winter fuel allowence for millionaires, expats being an easy example. But what about child benefit, is that not a state handout? Me and mrs duck both work and both earn above the average wage, yet receive £140 odd in benefit each month solely because we have children, whilst some poor sod has to live on £50 a week. Is that right? If you were designing a welfare state now I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be handing out benefits to people with over 50k combined income, in pretty sure expats living in Spain wouldn't get cold weather payments or millionaires get free tv licences. We have a welfare state that pays people in genuine need a pittance so that it can continue to look after people who should be looking after themselves. Until we have a fundamental debate about who exactly the state should be helping and for how long, we will always have people on **** poor money, because that's all we can afford.

+1 At the moment we are subsidising multi million pound business' like Tesco's. Labour politicians bang on about how proud they are of setting up the minimum wage, however it was a meaningless political gesture. There is absolutely no point in a minimum wage if it's set so low that the state tops it up. It's just one big con on the electorate designed to embarrass the Tory's and confuse the gullible..

Major difference between them and Portsmouth is the Mittal 33% ownership. They have seriously rich people behind them, they won't necessarily chuck stupid money at them, but its a totally different kettle of fish to the skate paupers.

I still can't get my head round the cockles who rush off early to miss the traffic. Are their lives so busy that they have to get home before everyone else? Bunch of ****ing prunes, winning 2-1 against the European champions, yet they have to rush off.

I would hardly call having to put up with that boring old windbag weddgie Benn privileged or lucky. No wonder he's such a geek, whilst other kids were playing in the street,he was discussing clause 4 , jack jones' tuc speech or the manifesto.

Robbie Robertson's guitar solo at the end of The Band's King Harvest (has surely come). The piano end of "A day in the life". But this is my fav, simple rock and roll at it's best, kicks back the chair and bangs the piano lid down. Looks like The Killer has escaped from the local penitentiary

This is my fav,

Man of the people my arse, he's from pure champagne socialist stock. http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1735/ed_miliband_the_wrong_side_of_the_tracks

Comparing his Premiership record with BM's is like comparing apples and Oranges, look at the spending of both clubs. I'd rather have the Championship in my trophy cabinet. BM saved Reading from relegation, took them to the play off final and then won the trophy in his 3 years. That's a pretty impressive record of success at Championship level and don't believe Adkins is an upgrade on that.

Based on what?

Runners up , had they stuck with cue ball head they'd win it again.

I wish people would get their heads round the simple fact that there have been no ****ing cuts. It is just a slow down in the rate we increase public spending. Once all of this governments "cuts" are in place they will have cut spending by a massive 1% at the next election. If that's austerity then my cocks a carrot. "Too far too fast" what did labour want 0.5 % over 10 years. Spending to try and kick start recovery is one side of the coin, the other side is to pay down debt, reduce welfare and not run a deficit during an upturn. Labour blatantly failed to do this, seemingly beleiving they had abolished "the bust". When the inevitable bust came, they left us I'll equipped to respond and with no leeway to expand the deficit and do what they are calling for us to do now, borrow more. All the parties want to do is manage the public, deep down they know that massive cuts are needed , that real austerity required (Ireland has cut spending by 15%), but are concerned about popularity rather than doing what's right. The stupid thing about it is that the public were ready for cuts, that the public believe we've seen cuts, yet the government didn't have the balls to give us cuts. They've taken all the political hits and all the bad press, but haven't got an economy in shape and ready to recover. They're like a bloke whose wife leaves him after catching him with another bird, a bird he never actually banged, just had a quick grope with.

Whatever any government does at budget time it is just tinkering around the edges. There are no "cuts" just a slow down in the increase of money the government spends. All 3 parties are pulling the wool over our eyes The amount of money in £ notes that we spend of welfare if targetted correctly would get rid of poverty in this country. The problem is , the money is spent too thinly. People who aren't in need are provided for,meaning that money is tight. We also subsidies big business by topping up low pay with tax payers money. Only labour could devise a system where they set a minimum wage, but then get the state to top it up because its too low. Meanwhile the Tesco' and MacDonald's of the world post millions of profits. If you think a minimum wage is a moral and right thing to do, then make it a living wage, not a mixture of wages and benefits. Until the benefit system is a temporary safety net for people or a permanent one for a tiny portion of the population, disabled ECT, we will never sort out the mess. Too many people look to the state for answers and too many people receive state handouts that don't need them, ****ing hell we had squeals of protest from labour when millionaires lost their family benefit, madness.

I have a 610, it's great for a dinosaur like me. OS is simple and easy to use, zune is pretty decent, office great and the half dozen or so apps I need do the job. The downsides are the camera's not great and it doesn't have enough memory for all my music.

I've had more laughs reading the last 3 posts than Lenny Henry's given me the past 25 years...........

What on earth makes you think people will never admit it? Why make a stupid comment like that? There's not one person on here who has slated him that doesn't hope that they are proved wrong.

NC's got more chance of going to the moon in shoebox, than getting all his money back if we're relegated.

I cant speak for anyone else but what I want is a guy who tries all the time, a guy who doesn't fall down with the slightest touch and a guy who looks like he wants to play for the club, but first shall we just settle for a guy who can take a corner without hitting the first man, or can keep the ball and pass to one of our own players. Some of his performances have been woeful and the only reason people say he's a genius or he can unlock teams is because he plays for us. Had Redknapp spent £12 million on him in the Jan window and he put in performances like he does for us, we'd be laughing at him, "typical Harry, just throwing money around". There is a world of difference between a Championship journeyman like Chaplow and a luxury player like Matt was, it not a straight choice between those 2 types of player. Ramirez just doesn't deliver and personally I doubt if he will for us.

Wenger's lost the plot somewhat, but he'd have to be on the sauce Cloughie style to want to buy Ramirez.

Hate it, and Children in need, wont watch it, wont give a penny towards it. Just a bunch of wealthy "celebs" telling us to put our hands in our pockets whilst they promote themselves. The BBC loving themselves for it and Children in need. "Children in ****ing need", there were children in need when Saville was their star and they turned a blind eye. The only thing I'd donate to watch is Eric Cantona kung fu kicking Stephen Fry in the ball bag.

It looks worse than it really is , because we were starting so far behind. I don't know if anyone has made this point, apologies if they have ( I haven't got the will to read all through the bigger club nonsense), but we needed to spend quite big to put us on a par with others. Reading didn't do so, West Ham had premiership players who underperformed in the Championship, and were also given Andy Carroll as opposed to paying for him. Playing the Dean Hammonds, Lee Branards and Billy Sharpes of this world, would have led to certain relegation. Other teams like Stoke and Villa were established premier league sides.

I seen a lot more nonsense written on this board, all in all not a bad article.

I can just imagine him doing a Basil Fawlty and thrashing the car with a tree branch.

Sides can pick up and then slip back into their early season form, so who is to say we wouldn't have achieved more or less the same results had Nigel stayed as we have under MP, they are the same players after all. Look at Reading, picked up for a while , was that BM tactical genius and if so where's it gone? Would we have picked up the same results had Nigel gone earlier, certainly Norwich and Swansea home I'm convinced we'd have won had Nigel stuck with the mad Pole in nets and not continued with the ridiculous Gazzaniga experiment.

Went for a few pints with my mate who works for a press agency last night. He reckons the Tory press are desperately looking for lib/dems that knew all about it, but kept quiet and made out they were "shocked" that he lied to them. Cable is the one they want, but are struggling to find enough to print. Mate reckons they've been tipped the wink that its worth following up.