Verbal

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'.

Not good.

How deeply surprising that the cap-doffing axe-grinders on here should think Ed failed. According to ITV News, the consensus among the political commentators at Westminster was that he did well. Having seen the exchange, I agree - he made Cameron look like the lying, slimy creep he is. (Just an objective view.)

And Liverpudlians. She must be spinning.

Needed by the state?!! Are you a refugee from the DDR or North Korea by any chance?

Which is why the washing machine has been argued to be more influential than the internet in changing modern society. Not many people know that...

Tell them to do PPE (politics, philosophy & economics) at Oxford. Employment rates for PPE graduates are stupidly high.

That's an awful lot of guesswork Johnny. I'm not doing much better, quoting personal experience, but I worked in the BBC Science Dept a while ago, and guess what the majority of staff there didn't have: a science degree. most were arts graduates of one kind or another, and a very large number of them were Oxbridge. The arrival of post-1992 universities - former polys - may have widened access to higher education beyond reason (it's arguable), but they haven't altered the British class system, and the way in which the more established universities are feeders into it. And please don't take too seriously the idea that there are a lot of grads doing menial jobs. Come back in say 10 years time and look again. Most people I knew did menial work when they left, or voluntary work of some kind. Their career trajectories since have in most cases been pretty meteoric (knighthoods, directorships, etc). Everyone starts at the bottom - and looking at what people do immediately after uni is massively misleading.

I think you need to re-read my post.

I do wonder (especially with that dangerously close to parodic comment you ended with) whether you've just been an expat for too long. I know plenty of philosophy graduates - history, politics, sociology, government studies as well. And when I compare them to the science and engineering graduates I've also known over the years, its the Arts and Humanities ones who've almost always done better in life. Now this is all circumstantial of course, and I really would like to see a decent longitudinal study done on this. But the meagre wage-slave future mapped out for so many scientists and technologists isn't, in my experience at least, matched by the A& H graduates. Check out the top echelons of the BBC, the Civil Service, the heads of charities, private schools political parties, those with major directorships. Whatever you may say about the impact of their social origins on their success, arts graduates are hugely overrepresented among the British elite. Now of course, by all means, tell children of people of lesser means that they cannot study the subjects studied by those further up the class ladder - but be careful that you are not making a tiny contribution to perpetuating or even rigidifying a characteristically British class system that is ossified enough already. When you cheer on a government that deliberately breaks the university system, be careful also that they (and you) know why they're breaking and what will replace it. If you really want a throwback to the late 50s, before the first modern expansion of the university system, one thing is for sure: to remain even vaguely technologically and intellectually in the game with other advanced economies, we will have to import talent by the boatload. But don't worry, it won't get so bad that we'll have to ask you back! Toodle pip, and don't forget to shout 'fore' when you whack your next tee shot into an Indian contract worker.

Truly desperate, desperate stuff. I suggest you do a history degree.

Because it's not even a deterrent. We can't fire any part of our nuclear arsenal without American approval. And besides, nuclear fallout does not respect borders. If you consider for a moment what the deterrent actually means - actually loosing off a nuclear weapon and all its unimaginable consequences - it's really no option at all. For which we pay BILLIONS. The beneficiaries are not us, but the defence contractors who pay PR companies and politicians well to perpetuate such a morbidly stupid logic. Set against that nonsense, give me more students any day.

I rest my case.