Potwalloper

You are confusing cause and effect. Interest rates will rise, so devaluing a '200k' house. It's the RESULT of an economy corroded by HPI.

More control Scotty! That man over there eating a doughnut - confiscate it and give him a hi vis jacket to eat. Bank, what bank?

We have saved the world. Definitely psychotic.

Nice absence of OCD switch it off types here. Excellent. 0.2W on standby is nothing. So Sony are OK after all.

He was, and he was equally interested in self promotion at the expense of his members. Nice Freudian slip - you mean rein? She was a bit bonkers and slightly evil. Not as bad as Brown, though.

The Monday That Dares Not Speak its Name?

Because nobody will lend us the money to fund it. Or anything else.

It's a start, and I wish it were that simple. The trouble is that yoghurt knitting is best practice in a lot of roles in the public sector. Cutting the chaff and keeping the wheat is not going to be easy, particularly when the bloated bleary eyed patient will effectively be operating on itself. Good people doing vital jobs in the public sector are bound to get the rough end of this too. It's a shame restraint wasn't exercised sooner.

You're not in a good mood, are you? A GP finding a surgeon for himself won't check their qulifications. He'll ask his mates about who's good.

I agree with all of that. It's the bonkers way it's run that could be improved. Just a bit.

Muddled grammar! Think again. I'm wondering when the country will go broke You're ignoring my point. He's an anarchist and doesn't care We're all in trouble You, the labour party, caused it by interfering and overspending again They, the conservatives won't be much better

Jingoism is still marring the debate. Even zeroK himself accusing the right wing blimps of thinking in black and white. He and Mal Volio still show no chink of light that they might accept that the state we have has gone too far in terms of size, complexity and power. On the other side, it's obvious that the anarchists are anarchic - enough said. The fact that the Public Sector Brigade don't acknowledge this, ignoring concepts of shades of grey shows that they are not being rational - they just LIKE the public sector, to the point that they don't tolerate criticism of it. There are no shortage of people like them in government either.

I think it must be a British thing to reduce every debate to football colours and name calling. The state has got too big and too powerful. Is this not obvious? If it were less intrusive and less expensive, I would like it. I suppose that would make me a turncoat. Bailing out the private sector doesn't happen. When banks, failed car factories, or other useless bodies like that are bailed out, it is after they have become instruments of the state - in other words, effectively public sector. The one bit of intervention that could have helped long before this point was to stop the banks stealing money in the way that they did, but the state was too busy instead with fantastically useless social policies.

Go back after a while. It might go down to very little. 17W on standby is silly!

I must be in a serious mood today! Suddenly changing the provision of all services today and making them all entirely voluntary is as bad as the creeping state intervention into everything that we currently have. It's just more drastic intervention that we don't need. A gradual withdrawal would be ideal, retaining the ones that obviously work. Frankly, I don't know enough about it to understand which do and which don't, and nor evidently does the government know or care very much. All academic really, because non-gradual cuts are on their way - and it's going to hurt.

I agree with that. It doesn't follow that the replacement of free market activity with state intervention, or just the introduction of state intervention is a good thing. Too often, it's turned out for the worse - giving the positive role of the state the very bad name it now has. For me, it all points to the state needing now to do less by way of a correction. It should simplify, not complicate its role for the foreseeable future.

So the choice is between something that never seems to work in practice and something that never seems to work in practice. Answer? Do nothing - it's cheaper and less overbearing.

I agree with much of this, and like the idea of companies taking responsibility for the development of all employees. It's something I take very seriously. We find that we have to put a lot of effort into it for school leavers, students on placement and graduates alike. We would not be able to function if we didn't. People leave us (although not many do) much more skilled than when they arrived. As well as being a practical measure, it's one of the most rewarding things about going to work for me. I know that corporation tax was introduced in 1965 - could this be a reason why companies take responsibility than at the time you mention? I know I normally make flippant posts about the public sector (instinct and personal experience tells me that it's a cage that should be seriously rattled) but this is a serious question.

Children will always suffer for the sins of their parents. It's part of being human, whatever people in Islington babble on about.

Because that's what it's for. Gay or straight pride parades are not the remit of government - or shouldn't be. By now, it should be obvious that the individuals attracted to public service are not built for restraint when it comes to abusing taxpayers. I don't believe that we should allow a government 'business' making profit out of parades, or that it currently makes a net profit when ALL expenses are taken into account aover ALL events.

That's the cross section we're talking about.

The Aussie/Kiwi will be streets ahead. Much less likely to whinge and slack if things aren't fair.

I watched that after you last mentioned it. Fabulous!

Usual government duplicity. Why on earth wouldn't the minimum criteria for social housing and the granting of planning for private housing be the same? Because you wouldn't then be able to employ more people to administer both.

I think - If you find a house you like - and you're not interested in the investment potential - and you are happy to stay there indefinitely - and you cover the prospect of losing your job financially - and you cover the prospect of a 10% interest rate then if you want to buy a house, it's a great idea. Don't look at the current 'recovery' or any of the daft chatter that surrounds it as any kind of indication at all. This recession is caused by serious fractures in our economy, not sentiment. It will find its way down, a fair bit more in my opinion. I think prices have further to fall again than the 20% they already have.