Lord Duckhunter

I hate to say this but Matt needs to take a long hard look at himself over this. 10 tickets is pushing it a bit and I'm sure he could have got 3 or 4 without a fuss and without playing the victim.Every single Saints supporter would agree that Matt should be welcomed into the club any time he wants, but that does not give him the right to stamp his feet like this. He is a wealthy man, with contacts in the football club, the game as a whole and the media, I've no doubt he could have got a few tickets through these contacts without dragging the club through more press nonsense. The wider debate about freebees is a tricky one. Do you have to be a legend to get a free ticket? Who decides whether you were good enough to qualify, is David Speedie entittled to a free ticket, what about Paul Telfer? My mates Dad played for the Skates in the 60's. He used to get 2 free tickets anytime he wanted until they were promoted. They then let him have 1 free ticket. Perhaps the club could have a set number and the first explayers to apply get them. Either that or they all pay for themselves, unless a guest of honour or like PR & NH's before Blackpool doing some sort of interview on the pitch.

Johnson may be "normal" but he was out of his depth in his brief. Balls knows the ins and outs of ecomonics and does present a coherent argument .My opinion is that he's wrong,but it's still a thought through coherent position. Balls will be a formidable Opponent who can hurt the Tories. That said, all polls show him to be deeply unpopular with the wider public, is right in the middle of all Browns failiures (if the public rejected Brown, why would they embrace his right hand man) and suffers by not being Millibands first choice. Personally weighing up the pros and cons I feel that this is better for the coalition as they can keep banging on about the past. The top of the Labour party will now have the 2 people who advised Gordon Brown, and were close to him. Personally I think he should have given the role to Balls' Mrs. She ticks the "normal" box, but is also a break from the ecomonic past, as she's not as closely assoicated with Brown. At the end of the day the economy is going to decide the next election, if it's on its way to recovery then the Tories or the Con/Dems will get in. If we're still in the mire then Labour will romp home,and that would be the case even if Dianne Abbot was GO's shadow.

My mates Father in law is pretty wealthy, he moved into the area and wanted to watch Premiership football so he bought a S/T at The Dell and then SMS. He kept it for one season in the Championship and then stopped going. When we return to the Premiership he is wealthy enough to buy a S/T and start going again, to watch Premiership football. Will he "have more of a right than anyone to question the clubs on topics" than I do? I'm just some mug that cant make enough games to make a S/T financially viable (due to work), but has followed the club for nearly 40 years no matter what league we're in?

An interesting article Guardian regarding the Tax free day, which is basically the day we start keepeing our own money . It's hardly a flag waving Thatcher supporter, but says "The all-time record for tax freedom day is June 14, 1982 when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister. It shot up be tween 1979 and 1982 as a deep recession shrank national income while taxes went up to try to put the public finances back in order".Sound familar, Taxes are going up again as Labours mess has to be sorted out yet again. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2005/may/31/money.thinktanks

Public spending also went up. It was 48.1% of GDP in 1982-83, compared to Blair and Browns 36.8 in 2000-2001, and yet the lefties will claim that public services were run down under Mrs T and New Labour invested in them.

Personally I would rather indirect taxes went up and tax on my take home pay went down.Thatcher must have been doing something right because not only was she elected 3 times, but the Labour party have followed suit and shifted their tax policy towards indirect taxation. Never again will we see income tax at the rates we had pre Thatcher.

Exactly, tax take reached a peak after Mrs T reduced income tax rates from 83% and 33%. Proving that you can reduce income tax and still put more money into the public finances.The lower the tax take the more you have to borrow or cut public spending, I would have thought the Lefties would be all for more tax take.Perhaps she'll get a state funeral after all.

Very good, but the problem is I was educated under the Labour Govt and Grocer Heath in the 70's, so my spelling and English is somewhat lacking.

All I want is some serious research into which tax rates will bring in the most revenue. It maybe that reducing rates will bring more in, it maybe that putting them up may do. My personal opinion is that at the moment tax rates are set on the basis of political positioning, rather than cold hard economics. If you could prove to the Labour party that reducing the top rate of tax to 30% would bring in an extra 3 billion a year, they would still not do it. If you proved to the Tories that putting the rate up to 60% would bring in 3 billion, they would not do it. My feeling is that reducing rates would not only bring more in and attract extra jobs, but it would make people feel richer, spend more and growth would continue to rise. Provided you kept inflation in check, everyone would be a winner.

Maybe, but a top rated 40% brought more income tax in, than Healy's 83%.

In 1979 the high rate of tax was 83% and the basic rate was 33%. The Thatcher Govt reduced both rates quite condsiderably and the money raised from income tax went up.How does this tally with the "tax the rich until their pips squeak" posters on here.Surely we should be setting tax rates on the basis of what brings most money in, not out of some sort of misguided fairness agenda.The bottom line should be tax take, and if that means the rich paying the same as me, then so be it.

I think that Howe moving could hit our chances of signings in a couple of ways. Any Boscombe player we were looking at would almost certainly interest Howe and all the players did seem to have a lot of respect for the guy. The other is the Charlie Austin situation, (if rumours of our interest are true) he would have been playing for Boscombe had it not been for their embargo. He played reserve games for them and trained with them, it was only after they couldn't sign him that Swindon moved on him. I'm sure Howe will be looking at him as well.

Mitchell is claiming that nobody will be leaving. http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/sport/8795844.Cherries_chairman_MItchell_tells_Howe__Keep_your_hands_off_our_players/

Because it costs money to aviod tax and together with a tough enforcement policy people would start to think it wasn't worth the risk. The other factor is with a low tax ecomony you would attract more business into the country, leading to more people paying tax.

Trond Soltvedt

Like it, there are loads who love it.

Has anybody heard anymore about this. Who else has been confirmed as a guest as I haven't seen anything more about it. Has there been anything in the local press?

I would have thought it was more likely to be Crouch than Lowe. Surely even Lowe knows it's over as far as the fan base are concerned, there is no way he could come back. Personally I think the whole thing is BS, the money involved is way out of either Lowe or Crouch's league. We've moved on to a higher plain finacially, if they wanted to buy in again, it was pre ML not after.

This is spot on. Govt's should be concentrating on tax take and not tax rates. There should be some serious research and attempts to understand the rates of tax that would bring in the most money.The problem is no Govt of any party has the balls to do it.They are too busy playing to the gallery and tax cuts for the rich doesn't play well. People are going to come on here and say that Govt's should enforce the tax regime and chase the rich and make them pay, but just like clamping down on benefit cheats it's just empty words.

I thought County were a pretty decent defensive unit. We are not going to win every game from now on in, not even all our home games. Our defence is so solid now that we'll pick up points in games where sides shut us out. People were just getting a bit carried away after the last 5 games, we're always going to be able to score goals with or with out AL. It is a solid back 4 that will take us up.

I really dont get it, all this fawning over their Managers by the Supporters and the local media. Grant is now be found out, and Cotterill is a similar sort of clown. They have a decent keeper, in Mokeana and Sonko a solid CB pairing, they have had Brown in CM. Nugent scores goals at that level, Kitsons pretty decent, and despite being 52 Kanu is class. Liam Lawernce is premiership standard, way too good for them and Halford is pretty steady.Add to that the likes of Rocha, and HH and thats a pretty decent squad. How then is Cotterill getting away with it. On Solant yesterday they were on about what a great achievement mid table will be as they should really be facing relegation. I just dont get it. The rest of football must think the same because I've yet to see Cotterill linked to any of the 20 odd jobs that have been available this season.

The Tory parties position on Europe has been the same for election after election. There is only 1 major party that has had a manifesto committed to withdrawing from Europe and that is Labour.Even idiots like Ken Clarke have been consistant over Europe, as have the Lib/Dems. There are members of the last Govt who went into an election pledging to withdraw, but when rejected by the people changed their principles. The whole New Labour approach to power was "dont like my principles, here's another set", and the core Labour supporters were so desperate for power that they rolled over and let them hijack the party.To try and hold the Labour party up as some sort of prinicpled body is a joke, it was a Labour Govt that took us into Iraq, a Labour Govt that chipped away at our personal freedom and locked up more people than ever before. A Labour Govt that followed opinion polls rather than lead the Country.It was a Labour Govt that allowed the banks to make as much money as they could and gamble like a drunk in a casino. Where were the Labour principles then? The Labour movement have no principles, the ones they did have they gave up in a grab for power.

I would rather Brighton beat Peterboro. Doesn't really matter if we finish second and ten points behind Brighton, it means nothing in the Championship.

Your principles appear to be rather flexible. I presume you were for clause 4 (which was a "core" principle for the party) and against Europe. But are now pro European but against Public ownership. If you've kept the same principles as the Labour party, they've been moving all over the place.

My Boscombe supporting mate reckons Bartley has been class all season and could improve a lot, whereas Pearce is at his peak in League 1. I thought Bartley was average at SMS and couldn't see it, but he watches them week in week out and says that was just an off day.