chipdawg

On paper that has to be one of, if not the best, front 3s in this division

I feel this has perhaps got away from the crux of the discussion! But I stand corrected

Well according to my logic still only 100%... Well to be honest as things stand and on current evidence he will if he's challenged on the UKIP manifesto as a whole rather than just Europe. My issue is more that how this fits with the BBC charter on political impartiality, though as long as other parties are allowed to participate they've done their bit As I've said before, the main achievement of UKIP at the next GE will be to usher in a Labour majority. They might get 1 seat, they may even get the 4 you mention, but they'll take them from the Tories and they'll take votes from the Tories in marginal seats. That's not an issue or even UKIPs problem, but the nuances of our electoral system may mean that they'll be further from their stated aims come May 2015 than they are now I guess Clegg has the least to lose from UKIP; can't imagine many Lib Dem voters making that jump

Can't any number be expressed as being 100% greater than zero?!?! Of course and UKIP have had an effect on Tory policy in the last 12 months, I was merely making the point that as things stand they have no MPs whereas other parties do Indeed, as is there choice. I'm just surprised that the BBC would televise a debate solely between the deputy PM and the leader of a party with no MPs

We'll technically 1 is 100% greater than zero, but I was being facetious in the first place so it doesn't really matter. I guess I was making a roundabout point that for all the bluster, The Green Party are actually more influential in British politics To be honest, I'm being lazy and not reading the links, but it seems odd (and against the charter) for the BBC to give two political leaders a platform without others. I'd presumed that BBC involvement meant Ed and Dave were going to be there I think Nick Clegg feels he can gain a solid platform into the next election by making Farage and by extension, UKIP, look stupid on TV. I hop it doesn't back fire

Actually, it's the BBC who I fail to see the benefit for. They've been pilloried on here for not giving Farage a mouthpiece and when they give him a mouthpiece and he gets pulled apart by another politician, they'll be accused of stacking the depth against him. Up until now, Farage hasn't had to back any of his policies up because he's been left out of the debate but given the vagueness he's shown over his own parties policies and the fear of being shown up by him by the big 3, they'll have teams of researchers pick apart everything he's going to say before he says it. As Nick Griffin found out after his QT appearance, all publicity is most certainly not good publicity As I've said elsewhere before, all UKIP are currently doing is guaranteeing a Labour majority at the next election; there's bound to be a bounce back to the opposition anyway and UKIP are taking far more votes from the blue side than the red or the yellow One further thing, but will The Green Party have a place in this debate? They currently have 100% more Westminster MPs than UKIP and I imagine a greater share of the vote at the last GE so surely in the interests of fairness they should get a platform too?

Don't be unfair; the problem has also been our woeful midfield Agree on the JET issue; for many people on this forum, it'll be a case of don't know what you've got till its gone

I was being facetious in my original post, but there's not a great deal to unlock a defence in that team. I actually think Baldock and Barnett are potentially a decent partnership

World of Warcraft? Not really into it

I'm not one prone to pessimism, but looking at that team I hope Barnett likes have balls smashed at his head from 40 yards away...

Decent performance for the most part, though the change in formation didn't really work for me. Wagstaff was decent, as was Reid but my MoM for City was Pack; thought he did he really good job in front of the back 4. I think we looked like we had more quality in our team than Bradford, but they were very well organised. They were also very dirty I thought- loads if little niggles and sly digs with elbows and there were a few 'robust challenges' that sailed a bit close to the wind, there was one in the 1st half on Reid that looked 2 footed to me. Other than that a reasonably entertaining game, although all the chanting and banging on the back of the stand did nothing for my hangover! Draw a fair result in the end- both hit the post, Elliott should have scored a header in the 2nd half and Parish pulled off a cracking save so I'd say a well earned point rather than 2 dropped

What I should have said was that it is not, as per your earlier assertion, the bloke in charge of the Euro's fault. I agree with you that it's doomed to fail; a great advantage in the good times, a noose around the neck in the bad

It's not the Euro itself that has caused the problems in Southern Europe, its their lack of ability to manage the currency in a manner suitable to their particular monetary problems. If you're German, or to a lesser extent Dutch or French, the Euro has been exceptionally well managed, the problem is with the concept of distinct economies sharing a centrally managed currency

Quite. I would argue that today's politicians are slightly less prone to sleaze and corruption that their counterparts from prior decades- not because their moral compass is somehow more well defined, but because they have less personality and imagination these days

As opposed to the elements in the Thatcher and Major governments that protected Jimmy Savile (allegedly)

To be honest, I often have it on for 10-15 minutes before I leave the house (though currently the Ashes have replaced it in my morning routine). I catch the headlines and the weather and then head out with Radio 4 on in the car on the way to the office. My main issue with Breakfast is when you watch a whole 'episode'; the repetition and the inane human interest stories they come up with are brain meltingly dull. But it obviously performs a role on the BBC schedule and if it gets viewing figures, who are we to question?!

But it's a populist news programme using a popular format. The fact that Suzanna Reid is still in that popularity and dancing contest is a testament to how popular Breakfast News is. Not saying for a second that i think its any good, but I imagine a decent chunk of the target audience for weekday mornings think it is, so by definition it's a good use of license fee money

The word 'terrorist' is a designation that can only be bestowed by the victor or the party in power at the time. If the definition of 'terrorist' is "someone who killed civilians" then it's somewhat cras for people to be walking around with images of Che Guevara on their clothing, or read the book 'Defiance' about the Bielsa guerrilla group in WW2. Or indeed celebrate the exploits of French and Dutch Resistance fighters in the same conflict. What about Laurence Of Arabia? Or the Hungarian Revolutionaries of 1956? Thats just covering a 20 year period in the 20th Century. All who- intentionally and unintentionally- killed civilians in striving to meet their aims and all who are celebrated figures rather than 'terrorists' Labelling Mandela a callous, murderous terrorist is as stupid as to completely disregard his past. For me, what he achieved post-incarceration was greater than any bad that occurred pre-incarceration or while he was in prison. That said, I suspect the to the majority of people offering their RIPs have no idea that Mandela had a history prior to his release from prison

Thank **** for that

What's frustrating is that we came out 2nd half looking to go for the jugular and then changed our mind to try and protect a lead against a team who had barely threatened. It's been 45 min of satisfactory, 10 minutes of better and now 25 min of rubbish and its unnecessary

You usually talk a lot of sense about footballing matters Jordan, but I think you're opinions on this game are being coloured by your perceptions of Cotterill as a manager. On balance, I think we're knocking it long from the back a little less than normal. I can only presume that you don't watch many early round FA cup matches because they're often just awful. Even when the higher ranked team are in form, they invariably turn into slog fests on a cabbage patch. Trying to play quick, intricate passing football on this pitch would be mental given the surface. We're mixing it up which is exactly right. Would I like to see us playing in a more attractive style? Yes. Are we playing the correct tactics for this game? I would say so

It really hasn't been that bad. It's a shit game of football (JETs goal aside) but its between a non league team and an out of form league 1 side so what do you expect? Tamworth are trying to kick is off the park and we're attempting (though generally failing) to play football. If anyone expected us to look like Barcelona against this team on this pitch on Cotterill's first game in charge, then you're a mentalist

The only thing that's factually correct in that article is that Mandela was a member of MK and the AIDS statistics at the end. Other than that its a vile, racist rant against 'Africans', labelling them with some bizarre Victorian-concept savagery