Pat

First I've got to say that I tacitly support the deficit reduction and reviewing Public Sector Pensions. Although the speed of change will be almost impossible to budget, for many, in the short term.

I'm afraid the Chancellor came across as glib, smug, out of touch and 'Etonian' (OK he went to St Paul's School) and the attempts to shoehorn his new buzz work 'Debtstorm' in to the interview (several times) made him just look like a [OK I can't use a suitable word here, but it's not nice].

He also gave the impression that, for the general public, budgeting is just a case of restricting yourself to 3 dozen quails eggs and a couple of cases of Margaux a month. It was also interesting to see how fast he changed the subject when the pensions of Politicians and Senior Civil Servants were brought up.

As indicated I understand the necessity of budget deficit reduction, but does anyone know of another interview on the subject that gave the impression that the interviewee was so far from experiencing the pain of the cut backs?

As an outsider I’m always a bit concerned in the perception of some physicists. Let’s be honest our current set of Universal Laws and Constants are sometimes held in too much esteem. I’m not knocking the best models we have of describing the universe, and all measurements tend to support them (neutrinos aside), albeit until contradictory evidence is presented.

However can we really be sure that any of these are constant, out with our local cosmological area?

This question is based on the hyperinflation theory based on the observable size of the Universe and the expansion that immediately followed the Big Bang. My main issue with this whole issue is the sequence of events the followed the Big Bang. As we have only our observations to judge the Universe, this appears to mandate that all our Laws of Physics came into effect straight after the Big Bang and not after the period of absolute Chaos that followed the Big Bang.

Why do we seem to believe that the Laws came into effect before anything that could be exacted upon existed?

Isn’t it equally possible that these laws came into existence at a period after the Big Bang and that the Space/ Time continuum coalesced after something that to our current knowledge of Physics could only be described as Chaos. I understand that describing this state as if it was a period of time is incorrect, but I have to use English. I also understand that we can only use our current physics to describe the universe, but the difference between the unknown and the currently unknowable is rarely discussed in Science Programs.

How would you make Investment Bankers realise public opinion on almost bringing down the World Economy while being paid vast sums for gambling with other people's money

How quickly is it likely to occur?

If it happens relatively fast, is there likely to be any problems when the magnetic field sweeps over electronic components or is it possible that any other worrying effects will be observed? I suspect that we won't notice, but it's one of these things that you think of at 3am.

More proof I've got too much time on my hands.

Use a metaphor to compare the various Bonds.

Here's an example using hand to hand weapons.

Connery 007 - a sabre; probably the ultimate version a combination of polish and lethal intent and in the case of Never say never again a bit too rust and should have been left hanging over the fire place. Maybe a bit too aficionado for some.

Lazenby 007 - any number of weapons eg. a Glaive; useful particularly in the right circumstance, but soon discarded and few people really know what it is.

Moore 007 - a railway sleeper; sometimes effective but often far too wooden and immobile.

Dalton 007 - a dagger; sharp and flashy, but really a bit too lightweight for serious combat.

Brosnan 007 - A rapier; sharp and mobile. Good for many uses, but looses out to the serious adversity.

Craig 007 - A mace; lacks the polish of some of the others, but highly effective if straight forward. One of the ultimate blunt instruments and probably the best for most people to bring to combat.

Please add you own sets or individual items; using any metaphor you like for this or other film series.

Best answer for funniest or most offthe wall..

As all Party's appear to be involved and we are unlikely to get the chance to get rid of career politicians completely how would an election remove the threat of this continuing after the interest has died down. Political leaders have been all engaged in back tracking, dragging out the old soap box and in some cases virtually rewriting history where their MPs are concerned

Wouldn't it just be a case of same trough, different snouts?

...MP's just want to screw their expenses so they can get parity with their City Slicker chums. On radio today, one of the City types defended their bonuses by implying they couldn't be expected to know what their doing while they gambled the Savers Money for 6 figure bonuses.

Which are we really paying them for Incompetence or Corruption? Or is there some other explanation for giving them more money than a dozen doctors?

Isn't complaining about unwanted incomers going to a country and ruining it for the locals, then posting the Anzac countries as an ideal just a bit hypocritical?

I've always seen G. Brown as a lumbering Bear.

Mandleson seem a bit like a snake and Blair a weasel and every time I hear David Cameron I think of a small Yappy Dog.

Most of the backbenchers come across as hooting baboons.

Anyone else think of an animal that they associate with any Politician UK or otherwise.

I'm sure everyone has experienced it. Someone posts a question, you try to give a sensible answer. Then, rather than judging the answers or even giving it over to votes, they just decide to delete it.

I know that it's just a minor irritation, but it is annoying. Do others find this and what do you think of it and the reasons that this is done.

What is the address to send all our angry letters complaining about the unfair and biased uses of the Barnett formula?

This is not so much the recent financial sector meltdown and the oncoming recession, but the bounce back in the current share prices {FTSE up to almost 4,500}. I understand that it's how the Traders make their money and that getting in early to a buoyant market can be very financially rewarding, but wouldn't a more stable market with a slowly improving trend indicate a better future. Rather than a few Wide Boys with Porsches taking a punt.

On a second point, is there anyway to better regulate the Money Markets for a sustainable future?

I'm heading down to York with my father {don't ask} for a couple of days at the end of the month. We won't have a car, and are staying reasonably close to the Minster. Can anyone recommend attractions, places to eat, etc. that will be open then. Particularly things that may be unlisted in a brief guide.

I'm in my forties, he's in this seventies so you can discount anything unsuitable for the old and confused..

While Brown was the dupe who rode a wave of credit spending to prop up an ailing economy, does anyone else worry that the real cause of the Economic explosion are the 'City Slickers' that used moronic economic principals to fund their exorbitant bonuses in the Merchant Finical Sector?

The fact that many of the top people are school friends of Cameron, and are likely to move in the same social circles, tends to imply that they will continue cash policy checks that their brain appear not to be able to cash. Does anyone expect that a Tory Party will be any tougher on their main financial supporters that New Labour was. The lack of ability to learn from Lloyd's 80's America Asbestosis fiasco, would imply that the banks will just go back to 7 figure bonuses the moment their shares stabilise. The fuel prices will continue to rise with concerns about reducing supplies and an increase in the powers of hydrocarbon producers and the cartel that are the energy providers.

So can anyone see a real answer to the problems that brought about the current crises?

What is the main reason for asking myriad boring, predictable and repetitive questions, usually on a similar theme, in this category. Do you not have anything better to do than type the same [expletive deleted] on a daily basis. Please try to be at least original in your hilarious wind ups..

Am I alone in reading a subtext in Bush's speech at the Republican Convention?

To me, there was an element in his message that said 'to save innocent American citizens we're going to bomb innocent foreign citizens'.

Is 'Good and Bad' just a spin for 'Us and Them' which at least keeps dubious morality out of the equation?

This could be applied to many situations, but I was travelling to Edinburgh for the festival. I spotted two people sporting football shirts, in this case Rangers, who were playing in Glasgow at the time. One was an adult sporting tattoos with the word 'Loyal' on them the other was a fourteen {approx} year old boy with a signet ring, and earring wearing shell suit bottoms and looking at the retail label of a new Adidas white hoodie. I probably saw a couple of hundred people around the train, statistically maybe a fifth of them claimed to support Rangers, one or two may actually have been to Ibrox, but none of the rest felt the need to claim their allegiance in this way.

Similarly you have the stereotype of the salesman with his BMW. How he enjoys the engineering while he hurtles round the M25, drinking a coffee, speaking to his boss on the phone while steering with his knees I don't know. He has really just bought a badge not a car.

Or the fact that while only a small percentage of Hip Hoppers/ Rappers

have been in shooting situations they seem the highest profile, mainly for hyping reasons and as a result a segment of society feels that they need to use violence for street cred.

Back to my question, rather than a fallacy used by the uninformed to pigeon hole strangers, is it really a marketing exercise to sell trashy products to the socially vulnerable and who should be ashamed the stereotypers or the 'celebrities' that have formed the brands?

Let's take in a few perceived facts or at least likelihoods.

Many of the Mill Towns/Cities in the North of England suffer high unemployment, and many new Industries and Services don't want to move there. {Look at the revolts in moving part of the BBC}.

Many of the Southern Cities {for example} Cambridge, Oxford and London have many new industries and few prospective candidates.

Many of these companies have been started as a result of academic work, often by the sort people who often run think tanks.

There is a huge problem maintaining or increasing amenities {water, power etc} in the South of England. There is also large overpopulation and infrastructure problems.

Their is a lack of airport capacity in the country, partially caused by building all the hubs within approx 50 miles of London and having poor infrastructures, meaning that many flights have to be made to London to join international flights.

Global warming indicates that in a few decades much of the South East of England {and particularly East Anglia} may be under water or {if the Gulf Stream moves} the country may be under an ice sheet in a few centuries.

Does anyone else think that the best, long term solution, is to make millions of peole move to the South of England to alleviate the current employment problems.

It gets a bit repetitive. I think that instead of 'throwing them out the house' we could introduce a psychopath and improve the gene pool instead...

Let's be honest most of them don't even deserve their 15 seconds of fame.