Christmas Tree

And? I don't see your point really. They aren't being stitched up because they've no chance of winning anyway. They knew that when they started campaigning. And whatever keeps the Tories out of power as far as I'm concerned, mainly because of their disdain for where I live. A good deal of MPs out there are not representing the first seat they stood for. Blair stood for Beaconsfield in a 1982 by-election and lost his deposit. They all see it as character building. You're demonstrating one of the biggest problems of society today CT - this ridiculous idealolgy that people shouldn't put themselves/be put into a position where they'd lose. There's no longer a sports day at my kid's school because 'it's unfair on those who don't win'. Utter shite! How can you ever appreciate winning anything if you don't know what it's like to lose? Alas dear craig your comparison is pants There is nothing wrong with losing but as a parent you wouldnt shout and support his classmate over your own son and hoped your own son lost.

And? I don't see your point really. They aren't being stitched up because they've no chance of winning anyway. They knew that when they started campaigning. And whatever keeps the Tories out of power as far as I'm concerned, mainly because of their disdain for where I live. Are you sure

There's lots of Bridgets out there. Each one is someones daughter, sister or mum.... Sniff sniff...

Naah, tactical voting makes perfect sense in constituencies where the party in question can't feasibly win. I suspect most potential Lib Dem voters believe in progressive politics and will be most concerned with keeping the tories out. More importantly though, the Conservatives still believe in heriditary peerage and are against electoral reform on any terms. The Lib Dems realistically need a hung parliament and a coalition with Labour for electoral reform to happen. Tell all that to the Toontastic Labour candidate (forgets her name) who has probably been working her ass off for the last year to get elected and now finds her own bosses asking voters to vote against her.

Wasnt that good like.

Thats good

The Desperate Party Labour Ministers urge voters to vote AGAINST Labour candidates to keep the Conservatives out. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ele...010/8658694.stm This is why they have to go. The likes of Ed no Balls and Peter Hain so desperate to keep their noses in the trough that they want voters to vote against new Labour candidates. Get Rid

Fucking will be if people follow CT's sig. Credibility shredder, if one was needed. Fist talks Shite, Dave is Right

Nothing to pop champagne corks over but a stability statement is very welcome and can only help in our attempts to attract players to the club.

The Financial Times has switched allegiance to the Tories having backed Labour at the previous four General Elections. Explaining its decision to endorse the Conservatives, the paper's leader says: "This newspaper still has questions about Mr Cameron and his party. "The Tories' reflexive hostility to Europe, for instance, is worrying, whatever his protestations that he wants a constructive relationship with Brussels. "His team is young and for the most part untested. "Given the opinion polls, it is conceivable that no party will win a clear majority. "This need not be a disaster, though Britain's experience of minority or coalition governments is not reassuring. "A perverse result, such as Labour coming third in the vote and winning the most seats, would increase pressure for electoral reform, perhaps irresistibly. "But that debate must come after the election. "Britain needs a stable and legitimate government to navigate its fiscal crisis and punch its weight abroad. On balance, the Conservative party best fits the bill." The FT's endorsement of the Tories follows announcements from a series of papers over the weekend each pledging their allegiance to a particular party.

Link?

Right then, Just watched the last of the three debates and can only call it as a huge win for Cameron. The ever irritating Clegg seemed to fall very short and come across as very weak on most issues. More and more his PR background is very telling and his one trick showman act has no substance to it whatsoever. Brown did a bit better than previous debates on the economy, but then returned to a very old style 70's politician with nothing new to say just accusations and scaremongering. His presentation was awful and his plastic smile at the end was hideous. Cameron I thought was brilliant and is definitely the "change" candidate. I think he had all the answers and new ideas and expressed them very sincerely. I fully understand die hards hatred for "The Tories" but I do feel Cameron "wants" to do the right thing and is a different breed of Tory to his predecessors. I dont see the act or pretence that is very clear in Clegg and Brown but do see someone who strikes me as very genuine about the changes he wants to make. As Blair was a breath of fresh air after a stale tory government, I hope cameron will rid us of this tired Labour government. The depressing fact however is that whoever wins on Thursday, the country is well and truly financially fucked for the foreseeable future. Thanks Gordon.

bang on, Brown always comes across as being out of his depth when hes out in the world but stick him down and actually ask him serious political questions and hes regularly very good shame hes portrayed as a bungler when he isn't one, if it was ever focused on when he did well then the tories wouldnt have such a good chance of winning Thats because he constantly is. Since Blair left his own party has dallied over whether to replace him but could only come up with the very weak Milliband. I can not agree. He always seems to dodge "real" answers and instead tries to scare voters over issues. Apparently Mandelsons nickname for Brown is Captain Bungle. Thats because the only time it appeared that he was doing well was when he inherited a fantastic economy from the Tories in 1997, a point agreed upon by all political commentators.

Brilliant It’s bullshit. I know somebody with no political bias who knew Brown from his days as a Labour back bencher and they say he was a decent lad who genuinely cared about ‘ordinary’ people. He might not be media friendly but who gives a shit, I want my prime minster to be an intelligent man with good intentions – not a plastic tool who just happens to be comfortable in front of the cameras. This is one of the big problems with our democracy. It has ceased to be about policy and has turned into a vacuous image contest. All style and no substance. I might add that I haven’t voted labour for years and won’t be voting for them this time, as has been said none of the parties really have the guts to do what needs to be done to create a sustainable and healthy society instead of doing what needs to be done get elected. You can’t blame them, the media have made the two mutually exclusive. The bit I highlighted is about Cameron btw and not Brown Also, you really should vote. People are dying all over the world for democracy. Even if you feel it's a wasted vote and your favourite can't win, at least it's another number for that party / candidate and will give them encouragement to keep on fighting for that cause. Be Brave, vote for Dave.

Brilliant

I find it amazing that anyone would want to vote for a party that has once again bankrupted the country, sold off our gold, sold off all the schools and hospitals, taken us into illegal wars and has at it's heart, the biggest Tory of them all, Dark Lord Mandelson.

What do you think the filthy rich are

While you were having a little chortle you could explain your amusement. I see little difference with what I or matt have said, only he expresses it better and seems to have a working knowledge of brokering this type of business deal.

Adam Arnold Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg have both been heckled while on the election campaign trail. A man who accused Labour of having an "orchestrated" strategy, shouted at the Prime Minister before being forcibly ejected from the room. Julian Borthwick had tried to ask the Labour leader a question during his speech at the National Glass Centre in Sunderland. The PM said there would be an opportunity at the end but the heckler was not satisfied with that. Labour supporters angrily shouted down Mr Borthwick as Mr Brown carried on with his speech. Mr Borthwick continued heckling and was then removed from the room by party activists as other members cheered. He was then escorted off the property by the PM's police protection. Later in the day, Mr Clegg was heckled by two men at a pub in Malvern, Worcestershire. One was a Conservative county councillor who was unhappy about what he said were lies spoken by the Lib Dem candidate about the Tory candidate. Mr Clegg was also heckled by a man called George Wilesmith, 27, who was told to "pipe down" by the politician as he interrupted a question and answer session. He was trying to ask the Lib Dem leader "should life mean life" in prison sentences. Speaking in Sunderland, Mr Brown's heckler, Mr Borthwick, said he was not a member of any opposition party. But the 38-year-old said he felt the Labour campaign was orchestrated and Mr Brown only spoke to party activists and did not get to talk to real people. The IT worker, who comes from Sunderland but lives in London, said: "It's the fact that it's been such a controlled campaign. "Real politicians are going around talking to real people and Mr Brown isn't doing that. Mr Brown needs to see real electors, not just hand-picked people." Mr Borthwick, an Oxford law graduate, also tried to ask him about Gillian Duffy - the woman the PM called "bigoted" in unguarded remarks picked up by a stray microphone. He heckled the premier with comments including "we're broke" and "what about that bigoted woman?" As he was walked to the edge of the centre's car park by a police officer, Mr Borthwick said: "This is what happens if you bump into the Prime Minister, you get walked off the premises." Sky's political correspondent Peter Spencer said of the incident: "I would put it down to something of a missed opportunity for the Prime Minister. It was obvious that the room was completely packed with Labour activists. "It would have been a glorious opportunity for him to have said, when the security guards were trying to push the bloke out, to say 'no, no, no. Let's hear him speak'. "And let him say his piece, answer him and thus prove the bloke wrong on the spot. But he didn't. He simply said 'Well I'm talking now you can ask your questions later'." Mr Brown had been making what was supposed to be his set-piece big speech of the weekend where he was talking about investment in the north east of England economy when the disruption happened.

As I understand it the club owes the money to the company he setup to buy the club - two separate entities. CT has it wrong imo - if he was going to "write off" the loan he would have converted it to equity with no value which is what Abramovitch did - keeping it as a loan suggests intended repayment. I don't disagree with that but the key is "intended". What he intends and what will happenare two different things. A buyer takes debt into consideration when buying a company. That's why you sometimes see company change hands for a £1 keeping the £111 as a debt gives him numerous options in an uncertain financial world including things like administration etc

You shouldn't be so dismissive of those "wasted votes", they're what'll win you a bunch of Lab-Con marginals. Of course, as always, if everyone who says they'd vote for the Lib Dems if they didn't think it was a wasted vote actually voted for them... The real Libs Dems would come out from the shadows.....

Leazzzzzzzzzes, you derail every thread, EVERY thread, into a pointless rant about how much you love Shepherd and how if people had listened to you we'd not be in this mess and all that bollocks. facts are, Shepherd inherited a club that was set to establish a prolonged assault on the title and we've stuttered and faltered and fallen. Even before the debacle that is Ashley we were falling behind, or at least treading water as clubs passed us. Were they better than Ashley has been? Yes. Were they perfect? No. Would they have, eventually, taken us down? Dunno, but I certainly wouldn't bet against it. Would they be a better steward for this period of the club? Probably not. Their "Boom and Bust" approach would surely have us return to the CCC without much delay. You are their fan, we get it. Fucking leave it alone. It's boring and mires all your footballing knowledge in a turgid mess of embittered gloating; a goblin, delighting in our situation for no-other reason than the opportunity to squawk "I told you so" like a pre-pubescent whelp. I am willing to put every penny in my pocket that this prayer will fall upon deaf ears and he'll keep scratching that broken record. Plus 1 Excellent post (crap picture)

It has been argued many times on here that this "must be repaid" line is rubbish. If and when he sells, the price a buyer pays will be the price, end of. It's like you lending yourself 30,000 for fancy wallpaper for your home. Doesn't mean that if you sell a buyer is going to pay you that 30,000 on top of the real price, no matter how much you want it. At the end of the day you will only get the market value. Same with Newcastle.

ofcourse we've got lower expectations ffs we were relegated less than a year ago and it was a relegation that had been looming for a while. We were scratting around for points pre-Ashley. It is no wonder they are trying to lower expectations when we still have fans trotting out the "we are better than that" routine. You may have also forgotten that he tried to sell and couldn't. There's no queue at the door now we are back either. I also doubt he is going to sanction anunproven prem manager with a blank chequebook. We would all love a return to yesteryear, but that's not going to happen so much better to be realistic than deluded. I will be delighted with 4 or 5 good additions and surviving next year. We will then be stronger, no Hughtons worth and be in a far better position to continue building. I am sure this is what will happen and fully support it.

Sounds like a complete inverse of 1992. I suspect the 'shy Labour' contingent may surface to privately back them. depends if it's giro day, can't see them getting out of bed otherwise.