I see it as a virtue to have a stable civil service able to advise whatever administration is in power. What is it that you don't like?

They are lazy, work shy jobs worths simply holding out for the final salary pension, they, by and large, see themselves as a law unto themselves. Now I am certain you will claim I am wrong, you may have had different experiences (or claim such) but I have been dealing with the same people for years. There are a few incredibly consentious individuals, the majority are as I have described.

Yes I thought you might say something along those lines and like the psychic you are, I of course utterly disagree with every word. How awkward.

I've been a Civil Servant for over 20 years in diverse roles across two government departments. I can say that irrespective of my personal political leanings, I have remained religiously apolitical throughout those years and have given honest and impartial advice to Ministers from every administration. I have had the privilege to work with some amazing people who have stayed throughout 10 years of pay freezes and 1% pay caps, and the end of final salary pension schemes (contrary to your statement) because of their commitment to public service. These are people who can proudly point to material benefits they’ve helped deliver for the public. As I said earlier, I think the fact that there is a consistency of workforce (although far more churn than you suggest) is actually a virtue not a negative. We’ve seen it all before and can advise accordingly. It saddens me that we are the fall-guy for decisions made at a political level. Decisions that are often made by all administrations IN SPITE of advice, rather than BECAUSE of it.

In my experience, many people with antipathy towards us, are those who don't like the rules and protocols put in place to protect the public purse. One mans red-tape is another's good governance. But hey, I hope we can still be friends.

And I said how can be OK to use the money to buy utility businesses so that the Marxist theory is observed - you are blinded by Corbyn's true vision. As you say get a grip on reality. As usual you declined to answer - nothing new there

All Boris is trying to do is win an election - a bit like you Corbyn worshippers when he offers to buy everything and get rid of tuition fees etc how is that going to be funded perhaps your hero doesn't see the serious issues you see. Keep singing the red flag

I'm wondering if things could take a different direction.

The EU, by insisting on a backstop to protect Ireland and the GFA, are vastly increasing the chances of a no-deal which would significantly damage both. They know that, even if they don't admit it.

Now, let's say we get to 19th Oct. The best thing the EU could do would be to refuse an extension, thereby making our exit on 31st Oct certain. Written in law. "No ifs or buts". We. Are. Out. However - at the same time they agree a deal with Johnson (backstop or no backstop, or something new).

That deal gets put to Parliament and all those MPs who've been wailing and gnashing about a no-deal for so long simply MUST vote for the deal on the table or - and here's the twist - they are guaranteeing we we leave with no deal. Parliament has voted against no deal (twice I think?).

All Johnson needs to do is field a bill stating very simply that we are bound in law to leave on 31st Oct and the only remaining options therefore are to vote for the deal on the table, or to vote against it, which is a vote for a no deal outcome. Surely even the worst self-serving parasite in Parliament doing their best to hinder Brexit would realise they are trapped. How can they vote the nation into a no-deal after all this time wailing about the disaster it would be, and after telling us how wonderful the EU is - the EU who has placed them in this position by refusing an extension?

Just airing my thoughts. I'm not sure the EU could bring themselves to go along with it, although it would be a quick way of reaching a reasonable outcome for both sides and it'd be p*ssing hilarious to see some of the faces on the opposition benches.

Wrong AGAIN.
I'm certainly no Corbyn fan but you seem to have a deep shade of blue blindness.
As I said in the original post, god help you if anyone you know requires any support from the agencies involved in mental health.

Perhaps you should contact the guy on QT this evening who lost his 16 year old child to suicide. Tell him that austerity works.

Sorry pay, but, you just aren't worthy of further response

"Insisting" makes it sound like they are being unreasonable. But it's been a red line for them since the beginning of negotiations and they've always been clear about that.

They need to protect the interests of the member state most affected (ROI), ensure the GFA is looked after and, importantly, also preserve the integrity of the single market. They were never going to, cannot in fact, move on the principles behind this red line. They are happy to accept alternatives to the backstop and have asked the UK to come up with something workable which won't compromise all of the above - but all they've had back is bluster and pseudo-nationalistic bull***t.

I have had mental health treatment on the NHS caused by the death of my brother during infancy - it took time to get help because there were only two specialists in Bradford and there were more needy people - I waited 9 months which I thought was OK given the limited resource.

We still come back to the issue that you don't want to confront - the finite amount of finance available. How do you determine where is best for the money to go for every regrettable suicide there will hundreds of people who will have their life transformed through treatment in the NHS.

Yes pump more money in but it will not manage every eventuality it simply isn't possible - as I said you could pump the whole GDP of the UK into the NHS and it still wouldn't be enough.

Its interesting to note that more public money goes into railways now that when they were nationalised and that since privatisation the cost of rail travel has increased by 20% in real terms. So, theres plenty of money in the system, the problem is where its ending up..

Of course it will a bigger infrastructure - improved health and safety needs, inflation etc. Quite rightly the burden of cost must sit with the consumers who use the system and not build up losses supported by the government. Greater investment in rolling stock etc. if it weren't for the unions most users would suggest punctuality have improved significantly since nationalisation and the trains are significantly better.