Wes Tender

It doesn't bother me that much, as I'm hoping to f*ck off somewhere abroad like you did, to warmer climes and cheaper prices. As soon as the property values improve here, I'm off. If Labour are still in government, that will be an extra incentive, but whatever the result is, there will be stiff medicine to face here as a result of their past few years.

It isn't that surprising that following a period of Labour mismanagement of the economy that drastic fiscal measures have to be taken to try and balance the books. After the latest episodes, if Labour are ousted on Thursday, whoever replaces them will have to take really quite drastic measures to get the economy back onto an even keel again and nobody will be at all surprised if beyond the money saved by axeing wasteful bureacracy, there are quite severe tax increases as well as cuts in services. Victory in this election is a poisoned chalice and I'm quite ambivalent about it and would not be too disapointed with Lib/Lab pact mark two, with a small majority like the last time. People have either forgotten, or are too young to know what a disaster that was and how it was almost impossible for the two factions to agree about anything. If it happened again, I'm sure that we would soon enough find out what a lightweight Clegg is and what sort of madcap policies the Lib/dems would try and impose on Labour as a price for their support. And it will be interesting to see who replaces the lame duck Brown.

If you're going to make broad sweeping statements like this, presumably without qualifications in Economics, perhaps you ought to explain in detail the basis of your thinking. I look forward to you giving me chapter and verse on it and why we would not somehow be able to continue trading with the EU on an equal basis and also be free to develop other trading partners around the World. And of course, there would be some benefits to gain from leaving, like not having to pay vast sums to the EU for the overwheening and inneficient bureacracy and the subsidies that much of our contribution goes to fund in other countries, subsidies which often give them a competitive advantage over our home grown industries. Also, we could restore sovereignty to our own Parliament so that our own laws passed by our own elected MPs take precedent over those imposed on us by Europe. As you see, trade is only one aspect of the whole thing and most will remain to be convinced that we could not explore other avenues or continue trade with Europe, but on our own terms.

That is why I said that you showed your ignorance and it obviously still has not sunk in. You said that they had to raise 4 billion to pay for the tax cut, but as I've already pointed out, the tax cut actually increased the amount received by the Exchequer. And I forecast with some confidence that the effect of the recent increase in the top income tax rate and the removal of the NI ceiling will not increase the amount taken by the Exchequer, as top earners either seek to avoid it, or emigrate to other countries where they are more valued for what they bring with them as scientists, innovators and entrepreneurs. As for your point about VAT, far better to have a tax on spending rather than earnings IMO and the rate we take in VAT is not that different from that charged by most of our major competitors and lower than in most of the rest of Europe. Our income tax rates do not compare very favourably with many countries and are higher at the top end than in most of them. But still, what else would you expect from the class warriors of the Labour party, who would squeeze the rich until the pips squeak. Along the way though, they also somehow manage to hit the middle classes hard too, robbing them of the incentive to work harder to advance themselves, as they see that when they grow old and might need to go into a care home, the government will force them to sell their own home to pay for it and that when they pop their clogs, they will have to pay further inheritance taxes, the Labour Death Tax, even though most will have paid taxes all their working lives. So the high tax regime is a disincentive to hard work and ambition and discourages people from saving and making provision for their old age or for their children. But then Labour's aim is to try and make society more equable. What a shame that they choose to level everybody downwards, instead of trying to raise them up.

Simplicity itself. Let's go for it. I would expect that the results of the election ought to be in within a month of polling day.

4 billion. A bit dwarfed by the billions of debt that we now find ourselves saddled with under Labour. What do you think they would be doing taxation wise in order to recoup it all?

Well, there is where you show your ignorance. Naturally there were loud howls of anguish from the socialists and the left when the top rate was cut from the stratospheric heights to 40% and the whole income tax system simplified to just two rates. To them, this was going to be the rich having their taxes cut at the expense of the poor. In the event of course, the result was that the revenue going to the Exchequer increased quite significantly. Those who had thought the extreme levels of taxation under the Socialists to be grossly unfair, either emigrated, (the brain drain) or simply found ruses through creative accounting, to avoid paying it. When the rate went down, many came back to the UK, or didn't bother dodging the tax, as it was deemed to be fair. Labour are either so thick, or have such short memories, or are tied up with so much dogma and class envy, that they never learn their lesson. So we have them increasing the top rate by a quarter to 50% having already taken away the NIC ceiling. And the Exchequer will probably soon find that revenues from the top earners will again fall, as it is obviously a disincentive to be paying more than half of what you earn in taxes, especially when a further 17.5% is levied on everything you spend and about 80% tax taken when you fill your car with petrol and all of the other stealth taxes.

Oh, those golden days of Thatcher and Clarke as probably the best Chancellor in recent British political history. VAT at only 12.5%, petrol duties at a much lower level than they are now, the level of indirect taxes a mere pin ***** compared to those that were introduced by Brown, surrepticiously from our back pockets, hoping that nobody would notice.

Its already been said, if we left the EU, of course they would not stop their trade with us. Do you seriously believe for one minute that the Germans, French and Italians would refuse to sell us their VWs, Audis, Mercs, BMWs, Fiats, Renaults, etc? We are major customers with them and therefore could expect that the traffic was two way, that they take an equivalent volume of our exports to them. But we would also be freer to increase our trade with the USA and the Commonwealth and others. As for the other side of the coin with a vote as to whether we would leave the EU or not, the attraction for many would be the return of our sovereignty, being governed by the laws set by our Parliament instead of theirs and the saving of the massive sums that are wasted on their bureaucratic gravy train. I'm all for taking it a step further, as I'm totally fed up with the Scots and Welsh having their own Parliaments/Assemblies, when they also have MPs from their constituences in our Parliament voting on English matters. I'd have a referendum on whether it was time to have an English Parliament. In the European elections, I vote UKIP as a protest against the main national parties refusing us a referendum on the various treaties that have increasingly dragged us further into Europe and reduced our sovereignty. But in the General Election, the vote is too important to waste on them and risk weakening the anti-Labour vote.

On this thread about gays not being normal, are you suggesting that the homophobic electorate have held that against them ever since?

In the interests of balance, perhaps they need reminding of the many good things they did, as well as the ones considered to be bad. And some have got short memories of the Labour governments of Wilson and Callaghan too. And if you say that was a very long time ago, it is all relative. Many of the voters in this election were too young to remember the eighties. I can well remember when inflation reached over 25% under Healey, when we went cap in hand to beg the International Monetary Fund to bail out our "sick man of Europe" economy. I can remember the Wilson devaluation of the Pound, Red Robbo ruining British Leyland, the inefficiency of the nationalised industries, the Winter of discontent, etc. Naturally, not many can remember when the Liberals were last in government, but many still remember when they propped up a dead duck Labour administration in the Lib/Lab pact. Perhaps they will prostitute themselves again if there is a hung Parliament.

And there you highlight the difference between the private and public sectors. Private business is exactly that, companies run by their own appointed boards or owners to make profits for themselves. It is only when they are suppliers of services and product to the general public such as the utilities that there might be need of any government interference. Otherwise the only other Government interference is subsidies to farmers and that sort of thing. Private companies have to be profitable and efficient to survive and thrive. It is the law of the jungle out there for them and the weak go to the wall. In much of the Public Sector, those same conditions do not apply generally, therefore there are not the same incentives and restrictions on their activities and that is why they are often overmanned, wasteful and inefficient. Private companies are only wasting the money of the owners or investors, whereas the public sector is wasting taxpayers money.

And many more at amazed at how clueless you are. Of course the waste isn't the fault of those who work as minnions in the public sector, but if you believe for one minute that those who run the public services are innocent of massive waste, then you are one seriously deluded individual. You only have to look at the job descriptions and pay rates advertised in the Guardian for a start to give you some idea of the madcap bureaucracy that exists, the Quangos, the extra layers of bureaucrats that could be slashed. And yes. you're right. Many of the heads of these bureaucracies have not worked in the commercial world. They run empires of pen-pushers and often if they don't spend their budget during a set timescale, they lose it, so they spend it on fripperies so that their power base and their empire is not eroded. Yes Minister was a satire with more than an element of truth to it.

You're a bit premature forecasting what exactly might happen to them and therefore what the further repercussions might be for other clubs who might be in a similar situation. You remind me a bit of a cross between Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg, except that there is no possibility of many here saying that they agree with Nick. You're like Gordon, putting up figures plucked from thin air (like your 5% in the £) in an attempt to justify your position and like Clegg in that your arguments are shallow and easily picked apart.

Cameron was streets ahead. Brown came across as a busted flush, pleading to be allowed to continue ruining the economy and Clegg came across as the lightweight he really is. At one stage Clegg was rattled by the attack on him by Cameron and Brown and looked flushed and on the verge of a hissy fit. On some issue or another, he stated that it was because of that issue that they couldn't work with the Conservatives, but David Dimbleby missed the chance to ask him whether he could work with Labour. These television debates are a farce and ought to have no place in British politics. It isn't about policies of the parties, as otherwise the party's spokesmen on those issues would be debating them. It is all about whether the three leaders of the parties are able to come across well on TV, that's all. The dissection of their performances afterwards by body language experts shows just how shallow the whole thing is, a triumph of presentation over substance. Another example of this petty triteness is the perception that a party might be more attractive to a dumb television audience used to washing powder adverts if the product is marketed as being "new". New Labour tried it under Blair and the gullible public bought it. Clegg is now attempting the same feat, constantly and boringly availing himself of every opportunity to describe the "other two" of being from the "old" parties. It obviously went way over his head that the "new" Liberal Democrat Party was just the very, very old Liberal party with a few deserters from Old Labour and that the Lib Dems are actually older than New Labour. Anybody with any intelligence woud not be deceived, as they would be looking to see whether the so-called new party had a matching set of new policies. Anyway, Brown wanted to give the impression that his strength was the experience of Government over the past 13 years, whereas Clegg wished to infer that the other two old parties were incapable of the new and fair approach they would have. Cameron struck the telling blows by being able to dismiss the Lib Dems as inexperienced in Goverment for decades and Labour as makiing promises as to what they'd do within months of being returned to Government, having failed to implement that action during the past 13 years.

Part of a post in The News, presumably from a Saints fan Very clever. I like it.

The Android on the skates application to UEFA to be allowed to play in Europe:- How can he make that promise when the club is in administration, there has been no buyer yet that has made an offer and the creditors have not agreed a CVA for the club to exit administration? Furthermore, if that was not enough, pretty well the entire current squad that cheated its way to the FA Cup final, will have been sold, to be replaced by ageing journeymen and youngsters. Even if UEFA were to allow the cheating bastards to enter the competition, it would be such a farce, that they would suffer ridicule. Mind you, I'm sure that we would find it hilarious entertainment.

Quote CB Fry: Thank you Red and White Army for expressing this point far better than I did. I had in mind a comparison with companies in the ordinary line of business, who get to hear whether another business is reliable and credit worthy and therefore they are more circumspect in their dealings with those who fall short in that regard. Naturally, if there was a guarantee in place that they would be paid 100p in the pound of the money owed to them as creditors, they would be perfectly happy to deal with that rogue company, safe in the knowledge that they ran no risk of getting their fingers burned. However, if that rogue company had a history of poor financial management and it was rumoured that they were spending beyond their means, then it would only be sensible that any business having dealings with them would want money up front, or would not allow their debt to increase beyond a certain level. As it stands, the current rules could reasonably be deemed to be an encouragement to overspend on players that a club cannot afford, rather than a brake. When local businesses who supply the club suffer, as well as charities, while wealthy agents and players benefit, then it is plainly wrong, ethically and morally. But ethics and morals are not qualities naturally associated with the Skates and the crooks that have associated themselves with them.

This is very much the impression that I had too from reading chapter and verse about it somewhere some time ago.

The figure of 5p in the pound came from you. The Android was muttering about 20/23p in the pound, a figure which would increase if the 100% payment towards the footballing debts was reduced. As I already pointed out, if players and agents were aware that without this protected status, they might have to take reduced settlement of monies owed to them, they might be a bit more circumspect as to whom they did business with. That in turn might concentrate the minds of people like Storrie to keep the club's expenditure within reasonable limits. Any normal business has no guarantee that they will receive all their debt back in the event of a client of theirs going into administration, so they are more careful about who they deal with and how high they allow the debt to go.

You're giving reasons why the ruling bodies have introduced a rule to protect the footballing industry specifically. How does this square up with my question as to why the footballing industry should be allowed legal protection to their overpaid players and the parasitic leaches who are the agents, whereas other industries are not afforded the same rights? You say it is there to prevent cheating and give the example of what might happen if a club signed players they couldn't afford and then welched on their contracts one year later. Well, of course, contract law would cover that, but no doubt you mean that the welching would be because the club then went into administration, presumably. But then the footballing governing bodies already make provision for that situation by points deductions, with increasing severity awarded to serial offenders. Ultimately they possess the doomsday sanction, the ability to prevent the club playing at all in any of their leagues if they wanted. So I ask again; why is the football industry allowed to have a completely different set of rules to any other type of business? As I say, the governing bodies of the game are perfectly capable of setting up their own rules internally to prevent some clubs buying players they can't afford and paying them more than they can afford, by the simple expedient of placing a cap of a certain percentage of income that can be expended on players and their wages. Trading while insolvent is illegal, thus a further restraint. It could be counter-argued that if a club gets into serious debt, then players will be reluctant to sign for those clubs if there was not the guarantee in place that they would be paid as preferential creditors. Whenever a company places an order with a supplier, or a commitment to pay a charity from funds raised for that charity, that is a binding contract in law too. Why should overpaid footballers and agents be paid in full and not these more deserving groups, as well as the HMRC? Other staff employed by the club effectively ought to have equal status to the players as employees of the club, so why should they not also be paid in full? What happens in the event of a club being liquidated? Presumably all of the employment contracts are null and void? I remain to be convinced that there is anything special with the football industry that means that they should have one set of rules in the administration process and the rest of industry and commerce should have another.

It totally amazes me how the football industry has managed to get a court of law to allow it to become some sort of special case, where effectively the law is applied differently to it. The precedent having been set, could other sports go down the same route? What would happen if a Rugby League club went into receivership, for example? And then the same thing for any other professional team sport. Surely there are other types of business that could also argue that they are a community of businesses? But why should the super-wealthy players in football be treated any differently from the employees of any other business and the creditors of football clubs in administration any differently than creditors of any other business? I firmly believe that this situation is illegal, but if a high court judge says not, then it is long overdue for the Government to pass legislation to make it clear that the hiererchy of debtors is to be the same regardless of the type of business. The situation with the Skates ought to have concentrated their minds, as this is a situation whereby the HMRC could lose several millions of taxpayers monies that could be spent on the Health Service, that money finding its way instead into the pockets of overpaid footballers and their agents, many of whom are Foreign nationals.

Thinking of going along to the Pyramids to support Chelski...

Ian Darke, The News: Perhaps he is forgetting Pompey sold all those expensive players and replaced them with loan signings and free transfers. Who they brought in after they had lied to the PL about their financial situation. And even then, they brought them in while insolvent and unable to pay their wages. Imbecile. Perhaps he forgot that the club have already been punished with relegation, a nine-point deduction and national humiliation. They have only been punished by the nine point deduction, nothing else. Even without it they would have been relegated and the national humiliation is not a punishment of the club that penalises their misdemeanours. Cretin. Perhaps he also forgot that Portsmouth Football Club is about rather more than the irresponsible spendthrifts who were just passing through and left the club on its knees Correct. They're not just irresponsible spendthrifts; they're downright cheats and frauds. At the least grossly incompetent, at the other end some are crooks up on criminal charges. Prat.

We're in really rude health as a club, thanks. Enjoying being debt free and also having enjoyed a great season of entertaining and largely winning football. As the season draws to a close, we can relax during the summer, do some deals to strengthen the squad still further, have a great pre-season and then go for automatic promotion next year. You?