Although hopefully he will eventually drown in all that bullshit.

And when Twat Munro is on your side, you knows you is in big trouble…

That’s priceless…yep, everyone can see how *anything* politely criticising liberals gets wiped from here, right? I mean, just look at this thread! You’ve been consistently censored on here haven’t you monkeyfish?

Eejit.

MM – In that case why not implement the comments policy consistently (no abuse or sacrcasm it says)

Well, you’re among the most sarcastic here, so it’s pottle calling the kettle black. Nevertheless, you’re right in saying it’s not necessarily implemented consistently. I do allow abuse at rightwingers, which I perhaps shouldn’t. But abuse at the right-generally is allowed. Ad hominem attacks I won’t be tolerating so easily.

I’m not on every day…not even close….and if it’s against your policy to criticise nonsense then just how do you justify the moniker Liberal Conspiracy…oh I get it…anything attacking liberals gets wiped

Just how much of my stuff have you come across you funny funny man? What do I normally post about?

No idea, and I really couldn’t care less. I imagine it’s total shit though. But why would anyone need to read your awesome ‘stuff’ when they can tell all they need to from this thread?

Thxbai.

That’s a pity. I could find work for a Rick-from-The-Young-Ones impersonator.

No. Are you suggesting I should…that to do otherwise is somehow dishonest? Do you even think most people do write like they speak? How d’you think Shakespeare announced he was nipping out for a piss?

#Hey, I only pointed out that the righties on this thread are humourless. Which is true.#

I don’t find that. Maybe you have a critical shutdown when you come across an opinion you don’t agree with. That’s not an especially tolerant or liberal trait btw. I find the views of some rightwingers on here abhorrent but I still find humour in the ways they express themselves…the two are entirely separable.

Some people on here seem to lack the ability to make the distinction and have implied the piece was funny, purely it seems, because it reinforced an old cliché (true none the less) about partisan groups making exaggerated claims. True, but hardly original or insightful while, simultaneously, not remotely funny…not intentionally anyway.

#It’s you who’s made a bit of a logical error in assuming I meant humourless = rightie#

Well in that case let me congratulate you on not jumping to a conclusion which virtually every other poster on here leaps upon with uncontrolled glee. I salute your independence of mind while despairing over the logical faculties of the majority of self-righteous ‘radicals’ around here….or…if you prefer…

“fair enough…makes a nice change”

Hey, I only pointed out that the righties on this thread are humourless. Which is true.

It’s you who’s made a bit of a logical error in assuming I meant humourless = rightie.

PS: Do you speak like you write?

What is it you like to say around here…’evidence’?

Oh…forgot… you’re so self-evidently right on such matters that when you opine we all just bow down in appreciation, grateful to be in the presence of such a tolerant and insightful polymath.

#Your verbose comment I think just about proved the point reagarding:

a) humourlessness

b) horrible sense of self-importance mixed with pedentry

c) a lack of intelligence

But glad you did it because without it we wouldn’t have had confirmation of your ignorance.#

Gosh…so scathing…and…satirical.

a)”humourlessness”..what…you didn’t find it funny? I thought when you didn’t find things funny….it meant you were humourless…that’s what you implied above…or are you just ‘po-faced’?

b) horrible sense of self-importance mixed with pedentry…..I’m assuming the misspelling of pedantry was a deliberate piece of irony…truly ingenious…you muppet.

c)a lack of intelligence…oh come on…this is too easy

“CAT….CAR…..LAMPOST……ANGRY LITTLE MUPPET WITH NO SELF-CONTROL….”

“wOOt”

Your verbose comment I think just about proved the point reagarding:

a) humourlessness

b) horrible sense of self-importance mixed with pedentry

c) a lack of intelligence

But glad you did it because without it we wouldn’t have had confirmation of your ignorance.

Cheers for that.

Just how much of my stuff have you come across you funny funny man? What do I normally post about…go on smart arse give me another example of my humourlessness or lack of perception.Thing is matey, trying to get cheap laughs from overblown Daily Mail hyperbole and pumped up claims from organisations like the Taxpayers’ Alliance is so fuckin lame, passé, lazy and fundamentally derivative that the one or two chuckles that were ever to be had were wrung out decades ago. I know it’s what passes for humour on a site like this, but that’s a kinda smug liberal hangup.

Try taking it on stage…throw in a bit of ‘isn’t George Bush thick’ or ‘look the BNP are trying joined up writing’…you’ll get the appreciative knowing and sympathetic laughs from the kneejerk bourgeois who never grew out of their student politics and try to retain a progressive edge while paying off the mortgage and stacking up the pension entitlements but that’s your lot. Do try harder Mr Sport…this stuff is pitiful. You genuinely are not remotely funny. I’ve read funnier stuff in the friggin Guardian.

#Oh! And keep on using words like ‘NuLab’ and ’sinecures’ to make sure people take you seriously!#

And you keep using reign for rein and we’ll know to do the complete opposite. In fact…why not actually post the ‘real’ figures…are there any? Or maybe give us an insight in the benefits of all these quangos. I’m sure there are benefits to huge amounts of money being spent by unelected, unaccountable appointees of the present government…just run through them again. Maybe convince us that the quangocrats are just regular people, appointed for their skills and experience without any kind of NuLabour agenda who are just trying to help out the working class? Any chance of that Sporty?

Nope…thought not…maybe it’s best you just keep to undergraduate stabs at satire about “The Mail bends the fact” or “rightwingers put a a rightwing slant on things”…very perceptive…very original. And soooo funny.

#27

“Gosh, aren’t the righties po-faced and humourless?”

Cast iron logic. Anyone objecting to a regime of liberal fellow-travellers running unaccountable layers of government for a party wedded to market logic MUST be right wing yeah? Anyone looking out for the working class interest would be BNP of course? The smug self-satisfied conceit of the useful idiot brigade…if you don’t support us you’re of the right…dream on.

Oh and humourless? It’s humourless to find a cack-handed attempt at satire lacking in wit is it? Oh sorry.

#I just fucking LOVE how badly people take these satire posts by Jamie, the comments alone are worth the entrance fee as the twats fight each other tooth and nail to be the most myopic and ignorant.

w00t#

“satire posts”? What’s that…something you use to hang up a piece of satire to dry? Do you mean ‘satirical posts’? If so…which other skilled and subtle satirists do you admire? Mr Blobby? Ant and Dec? Benny Hill? FFS.

Mind you, I’m forgetting…you’re the one who helpfully points out any racist post with a helpful “racist scum” comment underneath in case we aren’t paying attention or don’t understand. Do you want to provide the world with subtitles for anyone lacking your analytical skills? I bet you were one of those kids who used to sit with his face glued to the car window gleefully announcing “DOG…CAT….CAR….TRACTOR….SHEEP….SHEEP….COW….SHEEP…”

Most of them get past that stage…

w00t

Why so coy about which quangos you see as a waste of money and ripe for cutting, and how much money this could save? And what about the “super-quango” idea – surely a fantastic value-for-money idea given the number of quangos seems to hold so much significance for you and others?

But then again, gee, those numbers sure look big don’t they – I don’t have enough fingers and toes to even begin to understand big numbers like these.

“There aren’t 994 NDPB’s, there are 790. Phew!”

Yes. Wouldn’t it be better if the Government combined all of these into 1 super-quango? It would reduce the number of quangos by 789.

Most of these quangos are advisory boards and tribunals that cost little. If you only look at those that actually spend any money (i.e. do executive functions), there are only 198 quangos.

And then what would you cut? Looking at the big spending quangos in the Cabinet Office Public Bodies list, we can scrap the Learning and Skills Council to save £12 billion (why fund further education – just what is the point of A-levels anyway?). Scrapping the Higher Education Funding Council would save a further £7.5 billion (again – why do we need to educate our citizens – waste of time). Scrapping the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority would save £1.6 billion (just leave the radioactive waste be – it won’t do anyone any harm if we just left it there). Stop training teachers by abolishing the Training and Development Agency for schools would save £750 million (why on earth do we train teachers? What a waste of money).

I’ve already found you £22 billion of the £34 billion “wasted” by quangos with only those 4 examples. And just look at those pointless tasks – we have no need for any of this. Let’s hope Cameron abolishes them when PM right?

w00t

fwiw I have always said that I would be happy to pay more tax if it raised the threshold to 12k, so I rather like the sound of that kind of idea too…cut spending and allow the poor to keep more of their own money, excellent combo

But you have to face the fact that all parties now accept that cuts will have to take place.

If there’s a crackdown on quangoes and similar idiocies will this job – and others like it – disappear?

“taxing homes values over £1m, ”

Given the regional variations in house prices this means yet more taxes for Londoners and sweet FA (or nearly so) from the North.

“debate firmly on Tory/TPA territory”?
I don’t think so!
you may want to have a look at this morning’s proposals from Clegg and Cable about taxing homes values over £1m, as well as cutting annual exemption for capital gains from £10,000.
This would fund raising the basic starting-point for income tax to earnings of £10,000 a year, “removing four million workers from tax altogether”.

See what Cameron thinks of that?

Phew!

But Matt and others needn’t worry – with Clegg talking of “savage” cuts, and Brown in full retreat, the debate is now firmly on Tory/TPA territory and it’s difficult to see what will shift it.