Verbal

How edifying was the spectacle of Tory backbenchers cheering manically at the prospect of 500,000 people being sacked. I give the Lib Dems six months before they lose the stomach for being in any way associated with such obnoxious cretins - assuming Lib Dems have a conscience. (About which I am no longer certain, after Clegg's intemperate - and guilt-ridden? - assault on the respected IFS.)

Yep. Funny and yet sad.

Ok, I'm confused. Why has the rabid right suddenly started foaming at the collective mouth? The sight of Bognor and dull yelling 'indeed!!' to each other, with benjii reduced to incoherent ***'s, is quite a comedy. Chill comrades!

All but £32bn of the £160bn deficit was caused by the financial crisis and its consequences. And I think anyone in a university would be amused by your first sentence.

You feel blue with a white question mark?

Well done. You've just disinvented capitalism.

Your figures are way off. The two carriers alone cost more than £10b.

Your water is wrong. This thread is to be closed because of budget cuts.

So now the the Tories have conceded that the carriers will NEVER carry jets - at least according to the Torygraph. Unless you count the French planes that will be allowed to land on them. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8072041/Navy-aircraft-carrier-will-be-sold-after-three-years-and-never-carry-jets.html

Okay, but that's quite a serious allegation.

I think you're missing the bigger picture. How did Osborne reach his conclusion? Was it merely that chopping the carriers would cost more than building them? Leaving the gargantuan cost aside, you're going to end up with two empty carriers for an unspecified time. Surely if you decide to build the carriers, for whatever reason, you also have to take the decision to put some planes on them. That not only means looking to make savings elsewhere in the defence budget, but having a clear idea of how it all fits together as a defence strategy. But there's no sign of a defence strategic review informing any of this.

This isn't PMQ, you know. Why on earth should I or anyone else who has no political affiliation be interested in your attempt to deflect from the substance of the criticism. In the sentence you highlighted, you completely ignored the important bit. Who cares whether a politician looks foolish? It's just a statement of fact.

More than dreadful; it would be illegal. But I'm dubious, given the source...

You doubt I will criticise Brown, et al? Why? I'm not a Labour supporter. How odd that you would think so. In any case, one critical issue here is how a contract can be signed that is the equivalent of what Hollywood calls 'pay or play'. Defence procurement civil servants are, it seems a law unto themselves, and happily stuff politicians of either or any persuasion with whatever they wish - so that any decision to do other than they say ends up in the kind of absurdity we now have. So no, I don't think Brown was responsible for the absurd contracts. Are you seriously saying you do? Have you never watched Yes, Minister? As for Osborne, he's ended up looking utterly foolish with this, and it hardly reflects well on us as a military power, does it? It also indicates a kind of political paralysis - an inability to take the kind of decision that delivers either one thing or the other.

Does that figure not give you a moment's pause? £5.7 billion?! And how come Alan Johnson got involved? In his remit as Education Secretary perhaps?

Genius George Osborne has decided that it is a good idea to build new aircraft carriers, but not to buy the aircraft to fly from them. In the spirit of helpfulness – and in an act of charity to this dimwit – can we offer some solutions? If they still have those ramps for short take-off, I’d suggest giving the Marines skateboards for rapid disembarkation into enemy waters. Other than that, I’m out. I can’t think of anything that can rescue this decision from its imbecility.

And to all those who say this is a 'so what' issue - sadly not. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/17/increase-homophobia-violence-new-york

I didn't read that as abuse, more as a way of stating the obvious - that your antique homophobia needs sorting out.

So who put the C in dune?

Finally, some taste.

I've seen 4'33" live. As someone whose hearing was wrecked by too many Grand Funk Railroad concerts, it's hard to think how 4'33" could possibly be bettered. There's also a vinyl recording, but you do become a little conscious of the scratches, and it doesn't quite convey the ambience of the piece as it's performed (if that's the word) by a full orchestra and watched by a full house.

Has someone misread the instructions?

You don't win 'at various stages' in the leadership election. You win or lose. But this is pointless, because you're content to throw out some wild inaccuracy and then profess no interest whatever in whether it's right or not. But back on topic, Ed, David, Ed Balls, or anyone of the leadership candidates would have made Cameron look like the lying slimeball he is. So the real tests for Ed have yet to come. As easily as he won it, this wasn't it.

They're just retreading a Daily Mail story from yesterday.

And where might this non-newspaper reading man on the street be, Nick? As for David v Ed, I just don't know yet, although I do know that Ed isn't about to be horribly implicated in some unfortunate decisions during the 'war on terror'.