Alan You know perfectly well that first metrolink was promised then it wasnt then it was again ad infinitum, depending on which Minister was speaking, and whom he was trying to impress. Prescott says it's necessary, Darling says its too expensive, then in the face of an election it's promised, and the moment the election is over the plans get filletted yet again. It's a punchup between local labour council and labour government, a complete ballsup. As for asking Jen how SHE would have dealt with Iraq? Shame on you. Why don't YOU tell Jen how YOU would have dealt with it? Hopefully neither you nor her would have lied to us all about it! International law does not allow for going to war for the simple purpose of regime change, but that is what we did - regime change to suit USA's strategic interests, not to get rid of a tyrant or because of defying UN. In those cases there would have been a waiting list longer than the ones for scans on the NHS. Throughout this website's existence, you and your colleagues have ALWAYS ducked Iraq. And it is unworthy of you to do so in the way you just did to Jen. Given that you started all this in reaction to John Leech's election, and , as you know perfectly well, Iraq was the main single reason for that result, then your evasiveness is pure hypocrisy. You talk about having a debate. Debate means answering points, not evading them. Come on, tell us all what you think about the war in Iraq. You've got the floor. Tell us what you think about the 45 minute claim, the dodgy dossier, the agreement with Bush in 2002 to go to war and to engineer the circumstances for its acceptance, the dead scientist, Alistair Campbell, BBC Today programme, and the 100 000 or so innocent dead in Iraq. And tell us just how that compares on a scale of 1 to 10 with John Leech's statements about Christies, so we can see your sense of perspective.

Please supply an email address so we can contact you and give a brief explanation of why this comment violates the Terms Of Use:
Email Address:

Reason: