http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/09/britons-george-osborne-opinion-poll

Nobody trusts George Osborne; Theresa May seems to be making a bid for leadership'

Labour polls 39%, Tories 27%, UKIP 17%, Lib Dems less than 10%.

A comment from one reader:-

Sun readers don't care who governs the country as long as she's got big tits.

Apathy rules!

Let's have a Labour lot....these Tories are annoying...not even a decent sex scandal with them!

Apathy rules!

Let's have a Labour lot....these Tories are annoying...not even a decent sex scandal with them!

But the LibDems have just had a potential leader sent to jail, having been betrayed by his ex-wife (who he had betrayed) and have a former chairman facing sexual harrassment charges.

Bring back IDS and dump the LibDems. But for Gawds sake don't support Theresa May (either the MP or the porn star).(Well, maybe the porn star).

Here is a set of opinions on the CaMoron/Osbourne fiscal policies from a lot of economists,

http://falseeconomy.org.uk/cure/what-do-the-experts-say

Apathy rules!

Let's have a Labour lot....these Tories are annoying...not even a decent sex scandal with them!

But the LibDems have just had a potential leader sent to jail, having been betrayed by his ex-wife (who he had betrayed) and have a former chairman facing sexual harrassment charges.

Bring back IDS and dump the LibDems. But for Gawds sake don't support Theresa May (either the MP or the porn star).(Well, maybe the porn star).

Here is a set of opinions on the CaMoron/Osbourne fiscal policies from a lot of economists,

http://falseeconomy.org.uk/cure/what-do-the-experts-say

Alas most economists belong to the hilariously misnamed 'progressive' school. Essentially their strategy is to print money in order to postpone paying down the principle debt, leaving only the interest paid to avoid default. I recommend the book "This time it's different' , which details how every time this strategy has been tried for the last millenium it has resulted eventually in default and hyper-inflation.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8973.html

Alas the conservatives inherited a sinking ship with the dead weight of the Lib-dems to boot thanks to Tony Blairs treasonous gerrymandering of the British electorate through mass immigration. Aside from stopping this flow balancing the books is the only way to avoid eventual collapse. Sure Osbornes policies are unpopular, as I dare say rehab is to someone undergoing cold turkey. Sadly the prognosis is bleak, the conservatives will be kicked out long before the books can be balanced and continued immigration will drive the final nail in the coffin. I'd personally vote for that Paul Weston chap, but realistically UKIP holding the balance of power might at least delay the inevitable.

Triple dip recession and austerity Tories?

This lot are a joke.....give us champagne charlie sex maniacs please.

Alas most economists belong to the hilariously misnamed 'progressive' school. Essentially their strategy is to print money in order to postpone paying down the principle debt, leaving only the interest paid to avoid default. I recommend the book "This time it's different' , which details how every time this strategy has been tried for the last millenium it has resulted eventually in default and hyper-inflation.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8973.html

Alas the conservatives inherited a sinking ship with the dead weight of the Lib-dems to boot thanks to Tony Blairs treasonous gerrymandering of the British electorate through mass immigration. Aside from stopping this flow balancing the books is the only way to avoid eventual collapse. Sure Osbornes policies are unpopular, as I dare say rehab is to someone undergoing cold turkey. Sadly the prognosis is bleak, the conservatives will be kicked out long before the books can be balanced and continued immigration will drive the final nail in the coffin. I'd personally vote for that Paul Weston chap, but realistically UKIP holding the balance of power might at least delay the inevitable.

I agree, but among those economists were some Nobel prize-winners, so they will be quoted ad nauseam by both politicians and the media. The UK is in many ways better off than Greece, but like Greece has been spending far beyond their means. This has led to unbelievable debt, and just servicing such debt, when interest rates are very low and the value of the pound is falling, is obviously not the right decision. As much as is possible should be repaid, as we cannot guarantee the low interest rate as can be maintained.

It is many years now since Chancellors worked out a balanced budget - the concept seems to have been forgotten in the treasury. I have a certain income, an amount of savings, an amount of outgoings. Currently my outgoings are slightly greater than my income, which means my savings are diminishing. However, I know what capital goods I am purchasing and I know this is a finite overspending which will leave me with some savings. I shall then (hopefully) live within my income. However if my expenses rise faster than my income, even after all the capital spending, then I shall have to consider methods of increasing my income.

Regrettably no government seems to adopt this simple procedure. They all push their debts on a few more years, then cry (and get voted out of office) when the debt gets unmanageable.

We have Italy threatening to leave the Euro (won't happen - Germany will buy Italy first), people speculating that Greece should leave (won't happen - Germany has already bought Greece and put in it's preferred government), The best thing for the UK, in my opinion, is to devalue by about 15%. Doubt if that'll happen, either - would mean that CaMoron and his bum-chum Chancellor will look like twits (in their opinion) and that is more important to them than doing what is best for Britain. What's the use of having our own currency if we don't use our control over it?

Alas most economists belong to the hilariously misnamed 'progressive' school. Essentially their strategy is to print money in order to postpone paying down the principle debt, leaving only the interest paid to avoid default. I recommend the book "This time it's different' , which details how every time this strategy has been tried for the last millenium it has resulted eventually in default and hyper-inflation.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8973.html

Alas the conservatives inherited a sinking ship with the dead weight of the Lib-dems to boot thanks to Tony Blairs treasonous gerrymandering of the British electorate through mass immigration. Aside from stopping this flow balancing the books is the only way to avoid eventual collapse. Sure Osbornes policies are unpopular, as I dare say rehab is to someone undergoing cold turkey. Sadly the prognosis is bleak, the conservatives will be kicked out long before the books can be balanced and continued immigration will drive the final nail in the coffin. I'd personally vote for that Paul Weston chap, but realistically UKIP holding the balance of power might at least delay the inevitable.

I agree, but among those economists were some Nobel prize-winners, so they will be quoted ad nauseam by both politicians and the media. The UK is in many ways better off than Greece, but like Greece has been spending far beyond their means. This has led to unbelievable debt, and just servicing such debt, when interest rates are very low and the value of the pound is falling, is obviously not the right decision. As much as is possible should be repaid, as we cannot guarantee the low interest rate as can be maintained.

It is many years now since Chancellors worked out a balanced budget - the concept seems to have been forgotten in the treasury. I have a certain income, an amount of savings, an amount of outgoings. Currently my outgoings are slightly greater than my income, which means my savings are diminishing. However, I know what capital goods I am purchasing and I know this is a finite overspending which will leave me with some savings. I shall then (hopefully) live within my income. However if my expenses rise faster than my income, even after all the capital spending, then I shall have to consider methods of increasing my income.

Regrettably no government seems to adopt this simple procedure. They all push their debts on a few more years, then cry (and get voted out of office) when the debt gets unmanageable.

We have Italy threatening to leave the Euro (won't happen - Germany will buy Italy first), people speculating that Greece should leave (won't happen - Germany has already bought Greece and put in it's preferred government), The best thing for the UK, in my opinion, is to devalue by about 15%. Doubt if that'll happen, either - would mean that CaMoron and his bum-chum Chancellor will look like twits (in their opinion) and that is more important to them than doing what is best for Britain. What's the use of having our own currency if we don't use our control over it?

Economics is known as 'that dismal science' for good reason. If medicine were at the same stage of development as economics we would still be purging with leeches for many an ailment. Nobel prizes in economics might as well be for pure quackery. Sterling will fall soon enough, if that's what the market deems to be needed, no need to overtly devalue.

I have less enthusiasm for the current Conservative government than any I can remember, I think people of moral backbone such as Thatcher and Churchill don't seem to exist any more, certainly not in the field of politics. However I suspect current arguments as to which political party to lead us is akin to deciding whether to have a last line of coke after an all-nighter or give in to reality and hit the sack as the light of day comes. Either way the come down won't be pleasant. That's where we are, with a 4 or 5 year electoral cycle having subverted prudence for decades, this is what we are paying for now - there are no pleasant options left, except check out.

Alas most economists belong to the hilariously misnamed 'progressive' school. Essentially their strategy is to print money in order to postpone paying down the principle debt, leaving only the interest paid to avoid default. I recommend the book "This time it's different' , which details how every time this strategy has been tried for the last millenium it has resulted eventually in default and hyper-inflation.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8973.html

Alas the conservatives inherited a sinking ship with the dead weight of the Lib-dems to boot thanks to Tony Blairs treasonous gerrymandering of the British electorate through mass immigration. Aside from stopping this flow balancing the books is the only way to avoid eventual collapse. Sure Osbornes policies are unpopular, as I dare say rehab is to someone undergoing cold turkey. Sadly the prognosis is bleak, the conservatives will be kicked out long before the books can be balanced and continued immigration will drive the final nail in the coffin. I'd personally vote for that Paul Weston chap, but realistically UKIP holding the balance of power might at least delay the inevitable.

I agree, but among those economists were some Nobel prize-winners, so they will be quoted ad nauseam by both politicians and the media. The UK is in many ways better off than Greece, but like Greece has been spending far beyond their means. This has led to unbelievable debt, and just servicing such debt, when interest rates are very low and the value of the pound is falling, is obviously not the right decision. As much as is possible should be repaid, as we cannot guarantee the low interest rate as can be maintained.

It is many years now since Chancellors worked out a balanced budget - the concept seems to have been forgotten in the treasury. I have a certain income, an amount of savings, an amount of outgoings. Currently my outgoings are slightly greater than my income, which means my savings are diminishing. However, I know what capital goods I am purchasing and I know this is a finite overspending which will leave me with some savings. I shall then (hopefully) live within my income. However if my expenses rise faster than my income, even after all the capital spending, then I shall have to consider methods of increasing my income.

Regrettably no government seems to adopt this simple procedure. They all push their debts on a few more years, then cry (and get voted out of office) when the debt gets unmanageable.

We have Italy threatening to leave the Euro (won't happen - Germany will buy Italy first), people speculating that Greece should leave (won't happen - Germany has already bought Greece and put in it's preferred government), The best thing for the UK, in my opinion, is to devalue by about 15%. Doubt if that'll happen, either - would mean that CaMoron and his bum-chum Chancellor will look like twits (in their opinion) and that is more important to them than doing what is best for Britain. What's the use of having our own currency if we don't use our control over it?

Economics is known as 'that dismal science' for good reason. If medicine were at the same stage of development as economics we would still be purging with leeches for many an ailment. Nobel prizes in economics might as well be for pure quackery. Sterling will fall soon enough, if that's what the market deems to be needed, no need to overtly devalue.

I have less enthusiasm for the current Conservative government than any I can remember, I think people of moral backbone such as Thatcher and Churchill don't seem to exist any more, certainly not in the field of politics. However I suspect current arguments as to which political party to lead us is akin to deciding whether to have a last line of coke after an all-nighter or give in to reality and hit the sack as the light of day comes. Either way the come down won't be pleasant. That's where we are, with a 4 or 5 year electoral cycle having subverted prudence for decades, this is what we are paying for now - there are no pleasant options left, except check out.

Economics, psychology.... this is the age of the pseudo-science (I might as well have said Philosophy, Politics and Economics, which is probably what many of our leaders read at Oxford).

As you say, Steely Dan, we need someone with moral backbone. Old brandy-sodden Churchill had many faults, but we hung on his words during the War, and he inspired us. I remember as a small boy being forced by my mother to listen to that gravelly voice on the radio ("We will never surrender!") Thatcher may have got a lot of it wrong, but she had a vision for Britain, and she went for it. Inspired leaders are not always right, but they communicate something to the people they lead which is beyond price. Can't we do better than Camoron and Millibyte?

Alas most economists belong to the hilariously misnamed 'progressive' school. Essentially their strategy is to print money in order to postpone paying down the principle debt, leaving only the interest paid to avoid default. I recommend the book "This time it's different' , which details how every time this strategy has been tried for the last millenium it has resulted eventually in default and hyper-inflation.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8973.html

Alas the conservatives inherited a sinking ship with the dead weight of the Lib-dems to boot thanks to Tony Blairs treasonous gerrymandering of the British electorate through mass immigration. Aside from stopping this flow balancing the books is the only way to avoid eventual collapse. Sure Osbornes policies are unpopular, as I dare say rehab is to someone undergoing cold turkey. Sadly the prognosis is bleak, the conservatives will be kicked out long before the books can be balanced and continued immigration will drive the final nail in the coffin. I'd personally vote for that Paul Weston chap, but realistically UKIP holding the balance of power might at least delay the inevitable.

I agree, but among those economists were some Nobel prize-winners, so they will be quoted ad nauseam by both politicians and the media. The UK is in many ways better off than Greece, but like Greece has been spending far beyond their means. This has led to unbelievable debt, and just servicing such debt, when interest rates are very low and the value of the pound is falling, is obviously not the right decision. As much as is possible should be repaid, as we cannot guarantee the low interest rate as can be maintained.

It is many years now since Chancellors worked out a balanced budget - the concept seems to have been forgotten in the treasury. I have a certain income, an amount of savings, an amount of outgoings. Currently my outgoings are slightly greater than my income, which means my savings are diminishing. However, I know what capital goods I am purchasing and I know this is a finite overspending which will leave me with some savings. I shall then (hopefully) live within my income. However if my expenses rise faster than my income, even after all the capital spending, then I shall have to consider methods of increasing my income.

Regrettably no government seems to adopt this simple procedure. They all push their debts on a few more years, then cry (and get voted out of office) when the debt gets unmanageable.

We have Italy threatening to leave the Euro (won't happen - Germany will buy Italy first), people speculating that Greece should leave (won't happen - Germany has already bought Greece and put in it's preferred government), The best thing for the UK, in my opinion, is to devalue by about 15%. Doubt if that'll happen, either - would mean that CaMoron and his bum-chum Chancellor will look like twits (in their opinion) and that is more important to them than doing what is best for Britain. What's the use of having our own currency if we don't use our control over it?

Economics is known as 'that dismal science' for good reason. If medicine were at the same stage of development as economics we would still be purging with leeches for many an ailment. Nobel prizes in economics might as well be for pure quackery. Sterling will fall soon enough, if that's what the market deems to be needed, no need to overtly devalue.

I have less enthusiasm for the current Conservative government than any I can remember, I think people of moral backbone such as Thatcher and Churchill don't seem to exist any more, certainly not in the field of politics. However I suspect current arguments as to which political party to lead us is akin to deciding whether to have a last line of coke after an all-nighter or give in to reality and hit the sack as the light of day comes. Either way the come down won't be pleasant. That's where we are, with a 4 or 5 year electoral cycle having subverted prudence for decades, this is what we are paying for now - there are no pleasant options left, except check out.

Economics, psychology.... this is the age of the pseudo-science (I might as well have said Philosophy, Politics and Economics, which is probably what many of our leaders read at Oxford).

As you say, Steely Dan, we need someone with moral backbone. Old brandy-sodden Churchill had many faults, but we hung on his words during the War, and he inspired us. I remember as a small boy being forced by my mother to listen to that gravelly voice on the radio ("We will never surrender!") Thatcher may have got a lot of it wrong, but she had a vision for Britain, and she went for it. Inspired leaders are not always right, but they communicate something to the people they lead which is beyond price. Can't we do better than Camoron and Millibyte?

Indeed, Cameron and Milliband, what a depressing choice, whatever happened to the heroes? But perhaps we ourselves are to blame; As George Bernard Shaw once wrote 'Democracy is a device that ensures we are governed no better than we deserve'. Supposing for the sake of argument Churchill found himself surrounded by the press, politicians and civil servants of 2013. I venture that such a Naziphobe with an obvious alcohol problem would never have been elected, especially after upsetting all squidillion Germans with his warnings about chancellor Hitler.

I would venture the same phenomenon applies outside of politics too. Brian Clough, the best manager England never had, I doubt there will be or indeed could be another Brian Clough today.

Mr Clough, we would like you to come to the board room at 7.00pm sharp this Friday to meet Sheik Faisal AlDoshi, our new chairman. And please could you mind you 'P's and 'Q's and not come sozzled like you did to the last board meeting. By the way our chairman is a hands on type of man, who would like a say in which players to buy.

Alas even HRH Prince Philip will be irreplacable in a world staitjacketed by political correctness. He is worth a thread all to himself.

Come back Tony.... all is forgiven.

Come back Tony.... all is forgiven.

Never !!

He is the architect of the disaster that we are still living in. Plus his grandiose ideas of Britain's (and his) place in the world. Blame him for Iraq and Afghanistan, two wars that have killed probably more than half a million people, and overflowed into places like Syria today.

Blame him for the billions of pounds shovelled into banks in the UK in a panicked moment of madness.

Blame him for hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought in to the UK and put on benefits. Just to garner votes for Labour at subsequent elections.

At least the Europeans saw through him, when he wanted to be President of Europe.

The reason Ed Milliband is leading the Labour Party at the moment is because the old Left - unions and activists - consider him to be anti-Bliar and the 'New Left'. Bliar's policies have proven to be a disaster and everyone has backed away from those ideas.

Is this greedy man, worth many millions more than when he assumed office, still the Middle East Peace Envoy for the EU? That's another thing he's been unable to improve.

Nothing this man touched has worked out to be better than it was before he got involved. Utter failure.

I thought Peter Townshend had new leadership all figured out back in '71 . . . "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Alas most economists belong to the hilariously misnamed 'progressive' school. Essentially their strategy is to print money in order to postpone paying down the principle debt, leaving only the interest paid to avoid default. I recommend the book "This time it's different' , which details how every time this strategy has been tried for the last millenium it has resulted eventually in default and hyper-inflation.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8973.html

Alas the conservatives inherited a sinking ship with the dead weight of the Lib-dems to boot thanks to Tony Blairs treasonous gerrymandering of the British electorate through mass immigration. Aside from stopping this flow balancing the books is the only way to avoid eventual collapse. Sure Osbornes policies are unpopular, as I dare say rehab is to someone undergoing cold turkey. Sadly the prognosis is bleak, the conservatives will be kicked out long before the books can be balanced and continued immigration will drive the final nail in the coffin. I'd personally vote for that Paul Weston chap, but realistically UKIP holding the balance of power might at least delay the inevitable.

I agree, but among those economists were some Nobel prize-winners, so they will be quoted ad nauseam by both politicians and the media. The UK is in many ways better off than Greece, but like Greece has been spending far beyond their means. This has led to unbelievable debt, and just servicing such debt, when interest rates are very low and the value of the pound is falling, is obviously not the right decision. As much as is possible should be repaid, as we cannot guarantee the low interest rate as can be maintained.

It is many years now since Chancellors worked out a balanced budget - the concept seems to have been forgotten in the treasury. I have a certain income, an amount of savings, an amount of outgoings. Currently my outgoings are slightly greater than my income, which means my savings are diminishing. However, I know what capital goods I am purchasing and I know this is a finite overspending which will leave me with some savings. I shall then (hopefully) live within my income. However if my expenses rise faster than my income, even after all the capital spending, then I shall have to consider methods of increasing my income.

Regrettably no government seems to adopt this simple procedure. They all push their debts on a few more years, then cry (and get voted out of office) when the debt gets unmanageable.

We have Italy threatening to leave the Euro (won't happen - Germany will buy Italy first), people speculating that Greece should leave (won't happen - Germany has already bought Greece and put in it's preferred government), The best thing for the UK, in my opinion, is to devalue by about 15%. Doubt if that'll happen, either - would mean that CaMoron and his bum-chum Chancellor will look like twits (in their opinion) and that is more important to them than doing what is best for Britain. What's the use of having our own currency if we don't use our control over it?

Economics is known as 'that dismal science' for good reason. If medicine were at the same stage of development as economics we would still be purging with leeches for many an ailment. Nobel prizes in economics might as well be for pure quackery. Sterling will fall soon enough, if that's what the market deems to be needed, no need to overtly devalue.

I have less enthusiasm for the current Conservative government than any I can remember, I think people of moral backbone such as Thatcher and Churchill don't seem to exist any more, certainly not in the field of politics. However I suspect current arguments as to which political party to lead us is akin to deciding whether to have a last line of coke after an all-nighter or give in to reality and hit the sack as the light of day comes. Either way the come down won't be pleasant. That's where we are, with a 4 or 5 year electoral cycle having subverted prudence for decades, this is what we are paying for now - there are no pleasant options left, except check out.

Economics, psychology.... this is the age of the pseudo-science (I might as well have said Philosophy, Politics and Economics, which is probably what many of our leaders read at Oxford).

As you say, Steely Dan, we need someone with moral backbone. Old brandy-sodden Churchill had many faults, but we hung on his words during the War, and he inspired us. I remember as a small boy being forced by my mother to listen to that gravelly voice on the radio ("We will never surrender!") Thatcher may have got a lot of it wrong, but she had a vision for Britain, and she went for it. Inspired leaders are not always right, but they communicate something to the people they lead which is beyond price. Can't we do better than Camoron and Millibyte?

Unfortunately the world is now full of internet warriors who think

a) that their opinions are iportant

that they understand their leaders' jobs.

So rather than getting on with their own work and letting the elected leaders get on with what they were elected to do, they subject them to continuous second-guessing and negative criticism,

No prime minister has ever looked over my shoulder and told me how to do my job; I afford my prime minister the same respect.

The time for a change of leadership is at the next general election.

SC

The time for a change of leadership is at the next general election.

SC

If the country lasts that long.

Budget next week, remember.

The disenchantment with the mainstream political parties is not unique to the UK, here is am article about the rise of populist politics due to a widespread feeling of being disenfranchised from the democratic process by ruling elites.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/03/populist-signal-getting-louder-and-mainstream-politics-under-threat

What these so-called populist parties have realised is that what we are conventionally offered as democracy is not democratic at all. Whatever country you come from, can you honestly say that you had any real choice in electing your representative? Yes, you could choose, say, Conservative or Labour, but who chose the candidates? In the last election, the electors in my constituency, Brighton Pavilion, chose the candidate; she ( I forget her name) came from the Green Party, and had prepared by building up support over several years. How many British constituencies can claim that?

The problem with our democracy is paradoxically that too many people have votes. The electorate was progressively expanded through the nineteenth century, women were enfranchised, and the voting age was lowered. Result? Huge constituencies in which only a few people get to choose the candidates, let alone the MPs. (I suppose it's better than pocket boroughs)

What is the answer? A charismatic leader if we can find one (Nigel Farage is not).... but there's no guarantee that the charismatic leader will be a good one. One of the most charismatic leaders in the twentieth century was Adolf Hitler; enough said.

Failing a charismatic leader, I expect political parties to weaken, and the next election to produce an even more divided parliament.... so that we have a series of coalition governments like Italy (and France after WWII). And that will not do us any good.

And here is the latest slap in the face for Camoron :-

EU proposes £9.5 billion budget increase

The EU has proposed a budget increase of £9.5 billion this year – more than the controversial Cyprus bail-out – that would cost British taxpayers £1.2 billion and leave David Cameron no option to veto.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9956906/EU-proposes-9.5-billion-budget-increase.html

This is obviously the Brussels bureaucrat answer to DC's argument that the EU budget for the next few years had to be reined in, in a similar way to the national budgets of the EU member nations. But as these bureaucrats are unelected, responsible to no-one, they think they have a God-given right to do exactly as they wish and the rest of the European peoples can pay for it.

"In a week when the eurozone has been raiding bank accounts in Cyprus, it doesn't look good for the commission to try and raid taxpayers for a sum bigger than the €10 billion (£8.5bn) Cypriot bail-out," said an EU official

It is claimed to be needed to pay "unpaid bills" from the previous fiscal year. How come these bureaucrats ran up bills which they did not have the money to pay?

Britain should refuse to pay the extra (and try to persuade others to do the same).

It is claimed to be needed to pay "unpaid bills" from the previous fiscal year. How come these bureaucrats ran up bills which they did not have the money to pay?

Britain should refuse to pay the extra (and try to persuade others to do the same).

I agree with idea of telling the EU to sling its hook an many matters. France has been doing it for longer than I can remember by over-subsidizing their farmers. Sure they get fined 60 million Euros a year for doing so but they make billions from it. To make matter worse (if they could be), not 1 cent from the 60 million goes to the farmers in other countries which are being affected, not 1 cent.

It is claimed to be needed to pay "unpaid bills" from the previous fiscal year. How come these bureaucrats ran up bills which they did not have the money to pay?

Britain should refuse to pay the extra (and try to persuade others to do the same).

The problem in your quote is the poor standard of English - probably some British journalists who didn't understand the spokesman, and didn't want to understand him.

The EU regularly suggests projects that would help certain countries, some to be implemented within weeks or months, others which will take a year or two to plan and put into action (after being approved). The "unpaid bills" are not 'unpaid', beause they have not yet become due, as the projects to which they refer have yet to be fully implemented or completed. In other words the bills for these costs are not yet due, although the projects are approved and such costs were going to be put in the 2013/2014 budget, or even the 3014/2015 budget. Now the COST of such projects has been incurred, but when payment becomes due there will be no PROVISION in the future budget(s).

The Brussels bureaucrats are used to having a rubber-stamp parliament in Strasbourg saying OK to all their weird and wonderful ideas, so they have become careless in their accounting for future payments of current commitments. Sack the lot of 'em in Brussels, bring in a few fiscally responsible economists and accountants and go back to being a free-trade association, like ASEAN. Then things might quieten down, and Nigel Farage would have to look for a proper job.

Whatever happened to Julian Assange?

Recorded from BBC parliament "The Record Europe", 13 November 2010.... It's now 18 years.

Marta Andreasen, in the second of those clips, was the Chief Auditor of the EU Commission and was sacked for whistleblowing.

I always thought that one of the chief functions of an auditor was to highlight errors and fraudulent practices in the books.

That clip makes it even more obvious that the UK (with or without Scotland) should get out of the EU as it is currently set-up as soon as possible. A trading block is OK, but this 'Union' is disfunctional and dangerous to be in.

What is the answer? A charismatic leader if we can find one

Boris!

He has even turned a disastrous interview

into a PR success: "If the BBC can't bash Tory politicians, what is the point of the BBC at the moment?"

How many other politicians would have reacted in such a way when questioned about events which, apart from the affair, happened over 20 years ago?

I can't think of any. Most would have whinged and moaned and tried to dodge the questions; not Boris.

I like Boris....he's at least got a bit of fire in his belly.

This idea that politicians must be squeaky clean is ridiculous anyway....its their ability to do their job on which they should be judged.

I couldn't care less who they are shagging or what domestic strife they might have....short of using public funds for their own ends of course.