Verbal

And then quoted by JFK in one of his greatest ever speeches.

You shouldn't rule out a far more likely outcome: that the political consequences of the spending cuts will be so severe that the coalition's popularity will plummet to unheard of depths. By leaving, and causing a constitutional crisis, the Liberals may actually gain in popularity. Not much maybe, but compared to the party of Dimwit George, enough to make it worthwhile.

Thatcher fixed the 'mess' not by cutting public spending, but by increasing it by an average, in real terms, of 1.1% per year - according to the Institute of fiscal Studies. The sheer chaos about to be unleashed by the '25-40%' spending cuts will sort out the coalition PDQ.

Trousers is a Tory. He doesn't deserve a dime.

So if you don't 'earn' it you get thrown out of the country? I think this idea has been tried - along with invading Poland, etc.

We should increase the deficit, not cut it. The libcons are economic dimwits. Says the Torygraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financevideo/8048614/John-Maynard-Keynes-Horror-at-Governments-economic-illiteracy.html

Wrong. You're confusing him with Swiss Tony.

Which tense is this question in, trousers?! Anyway, the answer to your question, as heard in R4 tonight, is that the biggest block to Labour facing reality was Gordo himself. If they'd won, he'd have clung on, but they didn't and he's gone - so totally different situation. I'm not sure your hypothetical works.

This doesn't make any sense. The push for green, far from restricting technological growth, is actually a serious spur for investment in new technologies - just as restrictions on car emissions pushed the evolution of car engines in Europe and Japan in the 1980s onwards. I don't understand your next, seemingly disconnected argument: we may indeed need nuclear power for a long time yet - but that has nothing to do with the fallacy that green technologies inhibit technological growth.

And you STILL thought it was Jesus?!

While that is a fact, in the most obvious way, it does not address the issue. The problem with many deniers is that their arguments are based on the limits of their own imagination. Because they can't imagine that human-influenced climate change is real, it must be untrue. Their lack of education, in other words, trumps current scientific opinion.

Wgaf.

Nonetheless, 'renewable' is what they're called. A good friend of mine in the Eastern US has solar panels which generate so much energy he sells it back to the electricity company. His total electric bill is less than $400 a year. The panels were paid for by state government grant. So big companies don't always win.

You must be scared of your own shadow.

The post I was looking for. Thanks.

Sun, waves, wind, etc. Basically anything that doesn't run out - like fossil fuels or nuclear.

No one disgraced a war record more than that racist thug.

Smith has already found his most useful role - as compost. Go on, risk having your mind unwound from 1956. You know you want to...

Okay one last try. Dune, go away and read just one book. Just one, that's all I'm asking. Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang (yes, I know - he's not white) answers all your points (if that's the word) in '23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism'. Then let's talk.

Because, despite offering their services for free for all this time, they were told to reapply for their jobs. And they haven't resigned as such - just not taken up the tempting offer. ...is my understanding.

Not wound up at all - just amazed that someone would, of their own volition, wallow in such a pit of despond and ignorance. Was just trying to be helpful, but I guess that anyone who takes the view that history is whatever that racist idiot Smith says it is, is shining a rather too revealing light on themselves. I'll move on...

Back too quick. Now read!!

I'm not sure you're worth the trouble. But here are a few hints. Get to grips with the differences between social democracy and socialism, and their respective histories in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. You may even discover how European social democracy was actually a bulwark against East European state socialism. Then try looking at Labour's slide from syndicalist socialism to 'New Labour' social democracy, and how its obsession with 'targets' and control has nothing to do with socialism, but with a futile desire to bring the neoliberal agenda of market forces into public services. Let me know when you're back. Your homework should take approximately eight years.

Is there any chance - any chance at all - that you could raise your level of political sophistication above the average seven year old? You throw big words around without any hint of an understanding as to what they mean, and then draw playground connections between them. You'd do well to do a bit of reading around the subject.

Certainly. However, as Baj has made clear, only Full Members are permitted to apply. So please forward your bank sort code and account number to me by PM so that £5 can be deducted.