jimsleftfoot

Can't disagree as per basic template, but the owl on our badge (old and new) has always had personality, rather than say just being an owl symbol. The new badge in particular, whether it is likeable is one thing but it does stand out. As 4-4-2 mentions, its definitely giving evils!!

As much I prefer the old badge, the new badge is better than most. Badges tend to be boring and if anything it's quirky.

I've seen him play for Fylde a few times, he's got an amazing shot and decent skills but lacks movement. There's a good chance he'd struggle at League 1 level. Previously, Fylde's owner said they would turn down £500k for him, so I think we've fallen a bit short.

We are by and far the best at being strong and stable, no boom or bust for us thanks!! http://www.latetacklemagazine.com/features/1646/oldham-and-ipswich-are-quite-happy-where-they-are-thanks/

It's more progressive as taxes go. But its pretty harsh to those with a bit of wealth, doesn't say a lot about saving Vs spending. Also you get taxed on in home care which will ramp the bills up. For me, depends on whether there is a cap.

£72k cap was proposed as part of the Social Care act and was due to be enacted in 2016, delayed until 2020. It was also part of their 2015 manifesto. No mention of this or any cap within current manifesto, though the £100k floor was. They are now saying that there was going to be a cap, not sure what it is. George Osborne has called it a U-Turn.

It's extremely apparent in the centre of Manchester. The amount of homeless people on the streets has increased significantly in the last few years. I'm not talking about second hand figures either, it's clearly visible. My sister in law works in Social Housing. Its not a particularly nice job to work in given the lack of such housing available. Although I seem to be ok I know some colleagues who are facing redundancy on the back of Brexit and the Tories nonsensical policy of reducing student immigration (you want to trade with the world, let's stop a very good income stream and then pretend that immigration has been cut, when they would have gone home anyway). Do you know that they are changing the funding formula for Schools and many will lose out as a result (often in the North strangely enough). My wife's school is looking to cut staff as a result. I'm not sure on the details exactly but I have a strong feeling the 'extra' money is actually filling a whole they had already created so will not be extra at all. In fact I've just read an article that suggests in real terms, it could actually be a reduction (and with a 4 year old and 4 month old, affects me again).

In fairness, you don't get to be one of the richest coutries in the world by mucking up. Though perhaps that's more a plus for the Tories than Labour. Sweden are an example of where it can work, but whether Sweden can work for the UK is another question entirely. Im not Jez's biggest fan, but his policies are progressive and it sends a message that we want the government to be less Tory at least.

What if if they don't muck it up, what if they work out what they can deliver and deliver that? It seems a hell a lot better than the alternative. The Tories are increasing borrowing yet are reducing investment, particularly in non-Tory areas. its voting for someone who could damage the economy Vs someone who is already damaging my local economy.

I agree there here could be lots of reasons. Doesn't matter, that is the one intention and it has been successful. Arguably Ireland doesn't need nukes as GB, US and France all have them.

It's primarily supposed to be a deterrent against other nuclear nations being able to nuke us i.e. if you fire a missile at us, we're taking you down with us. Therefore it's had a 100% success rate up to now.

I agree, it has a lot to do with our culture. For example, making credit more freely available inevitably results in some people getting into more debt?

Yes i'd agree with LL. UKIP would get a larger vote (though perhaps also would have been found out) and that could have caused many mainstream MP's to back Brexit. There is a chance we could have been in a similar situation but whether a government would have wanted to be held accountable for taking us out, well...... they would have given us a referendum probably. So perhaps not remain after all!! On the other hand our political system may have been pretty different under PR (depending on the point PR had been granted).

I prefer PR to FPTP and would have been more than happy for the decision whether to remain or leave, to be made by an elected government (under PR) based on their manifesto promises. I'm fairly sure the result would have been remain.

After pondering this for many years, i'm now of the view that owners should not be punished for investing in clubs. It only serves to keep the already rich clubs where they are. Like with anything, there are cons but that's life.