Wes Tender

I went on the lash when Harold Wilson shuffled off this mortal coil.

Change the record. It's getting boring. Instead of broad stereotypical statements, try backing up your assertions with facts. If you can.

So have we signed Calderon yet?

A great response from NC to clear the air. I like the way that he stated that he didn't have the time, nor the inclination to respond to the tittle-tattle from those in the media or supposed insiders who had past associations with the club. This was a statement imploring us to accept that he knows what he wants and how to get it, that he and Pardew want the same things and that we should not take any notice of anything that is said by others. I particularly liked the reiteration that he felt the club was like his baby and that he enjoyed working with Pardew and watching the club develop and grow. His plans for the future, the training facilities, the encouragement of bringing through the youth players are all great signs that his association with the club is long term. Above all, it was a reassurance that the OS was to be trusted as the accurate source of news, not that tawdry local rag, The Echo. When he arrived and following the Radio Solent forum, most appreciated the fact that he was a professional businessman who went about things in a dignified and proper fashion. Seemingly some doubts had crept in and now he has addressed them and restored my confidence in him and I'm sure that many others will think the same.

I agree. And it was also obvious that a lot of that uncompetiveness was down to overmanning and the restrictive practices that made our industries unreliable also in terms of delivery and poor quality and that these issues had to be addressed. MT took on the task of addressing those problems, which took some courage and an iron will. But as a result, heavy industry has declined in this country and gone abroad to those areas of lower unit cost labour and much of the workforce that was involved with those industries has retrained in areas where there is demand, such as those areas you have highlighted. Another factor which was crucial in the change towards the type of industries you have listed was the reduction of the high income tax rates, as many of the most skilled people in those fields had emigrated, particularly to America, the so-called Brain Drain and as a result needed to be encouraged to return here. I worry that the recent increase of the top rate to 50% will begin to have an impact again.

It was not down to Thatcher. The manufacturing industry was overmanned and inefficient and therefore hugely uncompetitive against foreign competition. But even if that was not the case, it was only a matter of time before many of those industries would be lost abroad anyway, as unit labour costs could not compete with those intitially from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, then China, India and the countries that used to be behind the Iron Curtain. Therefore the demise of the manufacturing sector was down to the power of the unions who brought it down to its knees through strikes, restrictive working practices, overmanning and too high pay levels. If the blame lies on the shoulders of anybody, then look no further than people like Red Robbo and Arthur Scargill.

And the building of more prisons and the extra office space needed by the burgeoning army of bureaucrats.

Crystal Palace?

Not necessarily. It might have been that you have misconstrued what was said, especially as it was Labour trying to save face because the Lib/Dems shunned them as a busted flush

When is Hislop going to get his knighthood then, for his invaluable crusading against corruption and general bad practice? Get real and objective, he's just the editor of a satirical comic and a light-hearted television panel game. No doubt he's due the hero worship from you for his accolade as the most sued man in English legal history, so as you say, Clarkson isn't fit to lick his boots at least in that respect.

No doubt he will also speak highly about how wonderful it was to have worked with you too. Not.

You have to laugh at all of this righteous indignation because somebody who is known for his forthright views in the media dares to express an opinion about a failed politician. I didn't see you on here spouting forth whenever Ian Hislop or any of the Labour Luvvies makes fun of any Conservative politician. Care to condemn Hislop now, in order that we can consider your views to be balanced? No, I didn't think so. It's all OK having all the flak going one way towards the right of the political spectrum, but the left is sacrosanct, isn't it?

The Conservative Party had long since moved away from being Thatcherite after she left. In much the same way that Labour had to move away from its left-wing idealism to make them electable under Blair. And I thought that Labour was supposed to be a centre-left party under Blair. Did it lurch back towards the left under Brown? Mind you, many lefties seem to think that Blair was MT mark two, so it is difficult to be objective as to where the parties stand in relation to each other. But I agree with the thrust of your point that this coalition will be good for the country if it can be made to work.

Semantics really, as Han**** had been in the Labour Party in his earlier days and was elected MP for Portsmouth South in a by-election for the SDP, which was a breakaway faction of the Labour Party.

You're not a eunuch? Quel surprise! As a female, I'd have been more surprised if you were. What will happen remains to be seen and as this is the first coalition government since the Second World War, it is difficult to assess how it will go. But if you honestly believe that Labour turned down the opportunity because they had to be true to their core beliefs, you're deluding yourself. There were probably two good reasons why they were not able to cling to power by their fingernails, much as they would have liked to. Firstly, they would have been labelled as the coalition of the failures. Brown would have had to step down, as has happened and the electorate would have been angry with them for forcing the second unalected Labour PM onto us. Secondly, the seat figures for the Lab/ Lib/Dem coalition simply did not stck up and would have relied far too heavily on keeping a basket of small fringe parties onside. Much as I would have loved to have seen the two left-leaning parties angering the electorate with their dogma ridden policies, I accept that the checks that both the Conservatives and the Lib/Dems will place on each other will produce a government where decisions will be influenced by consensus and that can only be good for the country in these troubled times.

Diddums. Are you feeling a bit sore about events?

Do be a bit more precise. 60% of the electorate voted for candidates other than the Conservatives. You have no evidence that they all voted against them, merely that they did not vote for them. If you stick with that assertion, then you infer that anybody who voted for Labour or the Lib Dems only did so to keep out the Conservatives. I'm sure that the two Labour MPs in Southampton and the Lib Dem in Eastleigh will be pleased to know that nobody voted for them, but that they only got the votes because those votes were against the Conservatives

What a ridiculous thing to say, especially as you do not have one shred of evidence to back it up. They obviously love them so much that Labour had both MPs in the two Portsmouth constituencies until this election, when they lost one, but retained the other. The very same thing would have happened in Southampton if it had not been for UKIP saving Denham's bacon. So you might as well say that Southampton loves the Tories too.

In the interests of balance, I'm sure that you'll also condemn all of those extreme views from on the other side of the coin who said how much they hated the Conservatives and what a b*tch Thatcher was, etc. She also did some good things too, you know.

This is one of my favourites... The Times is read by the people who run the country. The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by the people who think they ought to run the country. The Morning Star is read by the people who think the country ought to be run by another country. The Independent is read by people who don't know who runs the country but are sure they're doing it wrong. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country. The Daily Express is read by the people who think the country ought to be run as it used to be run. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who still think it is their country. And the Sun's readers don't care who runs the country providing she has big tits.

No. I'm an avid fan of Yes Minister.

It is impossible to gauge. It all depends on whether the two parties can bury their differences and act for what they both perceive to be the common good. It could be a few months, or a few years.

No. Clegg was Westminster and Cambridge. Equally as privileged educationally though. And equally could be classed as a toff by those bigots who believe that our leaders should be educated at their local comprehensive. Not many are, strangely.

Of course you did. But do try and keep your opinions on forums like this and in the pub rather than in the classroom, please.

HeHe. Yes. We will hold the referendum in the fullness of time, when conditions are right. One cannot rush these things. It is better to take things slowly, to weigh up all the pros and cons. Rome wasn't built in a day, you know. It is easy to plunge headlong into a referendum and if the decision is hasty, we will have to repent at our leisure, as it will be nigh on impossible to reverse our decision should we find that we have made the wrong choice, etc