roquefort

I stand corrected. It was Cameron then who introduced the inappropriate use of the word. Please feel free to interrupt my flow. I won't be offended.

Increased spending every year has been the policy of governments of all colours (including New Labour) for many years. As to the inappropriate use of the word austerity I suspect it was the media rather than Cameron himself who first used it. I note you have carefully avoided replying to the second part of my comment concerning a long-standing Labour council.

Austerity? Perhaps you don't come from the post-war generation that knows the true meaning of the word and remembers food and petrol rationing. A reduction in the rate of increase of government spending is not austerity by any definition. Since you're so keen on governments spending other people's money, perhaps you'd care to comment on the outrageous salaries paid to these 'councillors' and particularly the 190k to Mr Dosunmu, apparently to fund his alcohol and drug habit.

I used to belong to Amnesty 40 years ago when its main purpose was to campaign on behalf of prisoners of conscience. It has become a highly politicised organisation, infected by the woke mind virus, like so many other NGOs.

They never went to Congress to ask permission for any of their forever wars. Now they want Congressional approval for the nuclear button to be pushed? "What's that you say, the enemy has just launched a first strike? Err....hold on General, we need to wait for a Congressional caucus to gather".

Galloway is a dangerous POS, in the pocket of every Middle Eastern dictator since Saddam Hussein. The Arab world may be dead to him, but he's done his best to recreate it in the UK. Corbyn is just a misguided Marxist fool. The only useful thing that Boris Johnson ever did was to see him off at the 2019 general election.

Not sure why anyone's confused about this comment. The facts are indisputable. On the one hand you have the revival of an economy that's been destroyed by 70 years of socialism, on the other hand the ongoing destruction by socialism of an economy that was already tottering on the ropes.

Not so favourable for the people of Ukraine. Half a millon plus casualties and the total destruction of many of their cities and industries. Of course that will also be a favorable deal for the United States, as Blackrock, JP Morgan and the other vultures fly in to pick over the carcass and profit from the massive 'reconstruction' funds that the US taxpayer will make available.

Yawn. Another sad hit piece on Carlson. What exactly is wrong with listening to what the other side has to say? Maybe if Biden had done that three years ago the US wouldn't be in the mess it is now trying to extract itself from in Ukraine.

“It’s such a complex beast and so hard to disentangle,” Goessling remarked. He proposed that multiple factors might be at play. Regulatory measures aimed at reducing sulfur emissions from shipping—a success for air quality and human health—may have inadvertently played a role by reducing pollution that once brightened clouds and cooled the planet. This one paragraph proves that there is no such thing as a 'scientific consensus' on climate change. They really haven't got a clue what's causing it, or even if there is anything at play other than normal cycles of warming and cooling that have been occurring for millennia. And no, I'm not a denier, just a seeker after truth who knows it won't be found in paid-for 'climate emergency' propaganda.

It's the BBC rewriting history to suit its own agenda.

Oh please! Is that all you've got?

You're obviously not running a business then or employing anyone. Try getting away from the keyboard and out into the real world.

BBC's influence on football. Premier League players still taking the knee, despite the utterly discredited BLM scam. Rainbow armbands an laces obligatory yesterday FFS. And at least one woman commentator/pundit for every men's match. And have you watched Wolf Hall (great series by the way)? Incredible the number of black people at the court of Henry III. But I'm sure it's historically accurate, as approved by the BBC's 'fact checkers'. They are running a ludicrously self-righteous ad at the moment. boasting about their reporters' 'tireless search for the truth'. Not an ounce of introspection or self awareness in that doomed organisation.

It's his modus operandi. Arrogance and personal attacks, Fortunately he gets very little support on here.