Happy Face

Did I hear right that ITV cut to adverts while matches were on? I thought it was bad when they did it during the Grand Prix, but that's incredible. No surprise they were duly caned on the ratings, irrespective of the commentary/studio teams. Let's be honest, they're not quite Cloughie back in the studio on either channel are they? Bunch of sycophantic friends of the squad. "He'll be disappointed with that!" "HE'LL" be disappointed? I'm seething with it myself. Just say it was shite man!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...iwGyV6W0KRLZwug The Lib Dems seem to be willfully alienating anyone who voted for them. People voted for them to scrap tuition fees, not to re-brand it.

Think HF already posted that somewhere but that's the first timeI've had access to sound. It'll be a small miracle if Clegg get's re-elected into parliament now. 2J deserves the credit.

So you do believe in spending during a recession, just not the current one? Yes totally 100% The impact on growth of cutting spending is small fry compared to the impact of the UK being downgraded. We seem to be covering old ground here and you're still not getting it. You're certainly covering plenty of ground. You don't blame the previous government but you do blame the previous government. You call me a conspiracy theorist for linking austerity measures with market confidence then link austerity measures with market confidence yourself. You say we're all in this together then say London should be spared cuts. Your talking to analysts you can't name, claiming they all agree, ignoring the analysts linked providing contradictory evidence, reading the FT for your impartial economic education..... I've missed you so much.

So you do believe in spending during a recession, just not the current one?

And what reforms have the tories proposed to put a stop to "toxic" debt? How does cutting public expenditure reduce the amount of sub-prime mortgages, the Alt-A or near prime debt? Public expenditure is the safest least toxic debt there is. Its starts at the bottom and works its way up HF First its some chief selling debt to someone who cant afford it. Then the banks are selling that debt to other banks....guess what that debt goes south. Then the banks need propping up, so governments are borrowing like mad Now we are seeing sovereign default in Europe due to excess debt We need to look at our attitude towards debt on a global scale and look at alternative ways to drive growth. All of which totally contradicts your pinning the blame on the previous government for running up an unsustainable debt. At least you now admit it was the banks that caused it. Debt itself isn't a bad thing. It's what drives the economy from the bottom up. Toxic debt is a bad thing. Especially when it's sold and insured against as a triple A graded investment. You seem to be confusing debt and toxic debt. You seem to be blaming the governments manageable deficit (as a proportion of GDP) for the banking sectors toxic debts and erroneously insisting the solution is to immediately reduce that deficit at any cost, all the while ignoring the fact that banks continue to wrack up further billions in toxic debts without any legislation proposed to stop it. You are missing my point entirely. I have never blamed the government the government for the credit crunch. I have blamed the availability of credit to people who cant pay their debts. And the debt house of cards this worldwide bubble was built on. What Im saying is that no one is immune to bankruptcy not even the UK, therefore austerity has to be the way forward. What I do blame the previous government for is not saving for a rainy day during the good times to lessen the impact of such a crisis and taking the regulation of the banks away from the BOE and giving it to the FSA. The deficit may have been managable but if we had started to put money away during the growth times we may have mad enough to pay our interest charges and sold our stake in the banks when the time is right to recoup the money put into propping up the banks. Austerity then wouldn't have even been an issue. I agree that in a perfect world government spending would be deficit neutral (at least) during boom times, but what you're advocating is austerity during booms AND recessions. That is economics catering only to big business.

And what reforms have the tories proposed to put a stop to "toxic" debt? How does cutting public expenditure reduce the amount of sub-prime mortgages, the Alt-A or near prime debt? Public expenditure is the safest least toxic debt there is. Its starts at the bottom and works its way up HF First its some chief selling debt to someone who cant afford it. Then the banks are selling that debt to other banks....guess what that debt goes south. Then the banks need propping up, so governments are borrowing like mad Now we are seeing sovereign default in Europe due to excess debt We need to look at our attitude towards debt on a global scale and look at alternative ways to drive growth. All of which totally contradicts your pinning the blame on the previous government for running up an unsustainable debt. At least you now admit it was the banks that caused it. Debt itself isn't a bad thing. It's what drives the economy from the bottom up. Toxic debt is a bad thing. Especially when it's sold and insured against as a triple A graded investment. You seem to be confusing debt and toxic debt. You seem to be blaming the governments manageable deficit (as a proportion of GDP) for the banking sectors toxic debts and erroneously insisting the solution is to immediately reduce that deficit at any cost, all the while ignoring the fact that banks continue to wrack up further billions in toxic debts without any legislation proposed to stop it.

And what reforms have the tories proposed to put a stop to "toxic" debt? How does cutting public expenditure reduce the amount of sub-prime mortgages, the Alt-A or near prime debt? Public expenditure is the safest debt there is. It's as far from "toxic" as you can get..

I suppose you're right, it's not really about winning is it.

Aye it is a strange system. It has been split into groups and they are in a different group to us, you play each team in your group home and away and also play each side in the other groups once. Then a play off then a final. Aye and we've been totally screwed over. Man u and Man City in our group, their reserves would beat our first team. The mackems get Blackpool and Blackburn.

To be honest Alex, I'm losing the will to live on this one. I find it staggering that people want to continue building an economy on unsustainable debt levels after a crisis caused by.....unsustainable debt levels nutters Which analyst told you that? Our debt levels were totally sustainable.....if the debt had actually been graded correctly by the industry. The crisis was caused by shitty toxic debts getting wrapped up together and sold on as grade-A money making guarantees......and insurance being taken out against them by the select few that knew they'd fail....but didn't give a shit because it would turn a profit.

The thing that makes me laugh HF is that you are prepared to believe the idiotic fantasies of internet conspiracy theorists whilst calling into question the motivations / accuracy of the Financial Times. Typical loony lefty I guess. That's a bit of an about turn isn't it? Just a couple of posts ago you said that social welfare spending and market welfare were inextricably linked. When i say the same thing it's a loony lefty conspiracy. Get your story straight. Are they linked or not? Does the market improve with austerity measures or not? Does the FT prefer immediate austerity measures to improve the market while the public take the burden or an extended stimulus that lessens the public burden but slows market growth? I should imagine they have weighed up the threat of credit rating downgrade against the threat to growth from austerity. A credit rating downgrade would be exactly what I described you numpty, the market punishing the government for policies that weren't business friendly. That totally backs up exactly what I was saying and what you called lunatic conspiracy theory.

Dylan Ratigan's gone on tirades like this a couple of times. Should do it more often.

The thing that makes me laugh HF is that you are prepared to believe the idiotic fantasies of internet conspiracy theorists whilst calling into question the motivations / accuracy of the Financial Times. Typical loony lefty I guess. That's a bit of an about turn isn't it? Just a couple of posts ago you said that social welfare spending and market welfare were inextricably linked. When i say the same thing it's a loony lefty conspiracy. Get your story straight. Are they linked or not? Does the market improve with austerity measures or not? Does the FT prefer immediate austerity measures to improve the market while the public take the burden or an extended stimulus that lessens the public burden but slows market growth?

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6304423

Prick! Forgot tto use the mantra: "we're all in this together".

What do you think motivates the FT and it's readers? Overall social welfare or listed companies stock prices? The two are intrinsically linked. But if it came to tough decisions, which would they prioritise? I would like to think they would give a balanced view based on the data. Dodging the question. You'd be wrong. They'd say "fuck jobs, fuck healtchare, fuck education, fuck transport, fuck modernisation, fuck oversight and fuck everything else. The main priority has to be that the market has confidence that the government will bend to it's every whim, whatever the cost to social welfare. If you deviate from this truth even momentarily the market will punish you with a huge plunge."

Prick!

What do you think motivates the FT and it's readers? Overall social welfare or listed companies stock prices? The two are intrinsically linked. But if it came to tough decisions, which would they prioritise?

Apparently Gillian Mckeith has made the mistake of crossing Ben Goldacre on Twitter today and is frantically deleting all evidence of it. Apparently he's going to sue her for libel after she called him a liar.

What do you think motivates the FT and it's readers? Overall social welfare or listed companies stock prices?

As if by magic, Krugman decided to explain things to Danny. He posted this a couple of minutes ago.... http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/1...=NytimesKrugman

Mackems away on August 31st. Champion. Daft we don't get a return tie at St James like. Odd new system.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/8820649.stm

It aint over till you cut that ridiculous Mark Hateley 1991 barnet and fuck off to a Reading forum? Stevie.. shut the fuck up. Magma'd On waccoe the big Leeds board they have an under 21 board, would be a good idea on here. Maybe having a voting system, about who we promote to the full squad. Don't restrict it by age. Let's have 4 divisions from which any posters can be promoted or relegated at any point.