The political news bulletin emails are full of the story this morning that Nick Clegg has hinted that he’d back the Tories to form a government after the next election in the event of a hung parliament. Whether this would take the form of full participation, or supporting a minority government with confidence and supply we don’t yet know – in fact, given that Westminster politicians haven’t had to think in these terms for a generation, I suspect Cleggy himself doesn’t know.

This, in the pervading media narrative of a Labour party destined to lose, is being pitched as a ‘dent to our hopes’ of forming a government, and yet another nail in the coffin of the Labour government. But then again, maybe not?

The constituency I live in, Warwick and Leamington, is Labour-Tory marginal. At the last election, James Plaskitt MP retained his seat with the catwalk-model slender majority of 266. With boundary changes and the like, this is notionally higher, but it is still likely to be close. Lib Dem voters – in my area, often disillusioned Labour voters, will make the difference. Do we really believe that when push comes the shove, these people are going to support a Tory government? Or will they be put off by Nick Clegg’s new-found support for a party that would cut services to cut inheritance tax?

The Lib Dems built their support in recent years by advocating the 50p tax rate, opposing the war in Iraq and supporting the removal of tuition fees. I for one, find it hard to believe that people who voted for them based on those policies will be too keen to give them the power to prop up a Tory government. If we do our job, and outline a strong, progressive agenda for the next term, these voters will return to their natural home and vote Labour. If we don’t, they will probably stay at home.

Yet again, there is all to play for. So instead of reeling at Nick Clegg’s apparent blow to our hopes of government, we need to grasp the opportunity it provides.

PART 17 of My PC Adventure (see full story HERE> )

Am I cured of prostate cancer?

I don’t know. The signs are already good, but I’ll just have to wait. I’m officially in limbo for the next 17 weeks.

I have no further appointments with the medical profession until late August, when I need to get a PSA blood test and then a few days later have a followup visit with the surgeon. Then we’ll know more.

It seems the magic “c” word is elusive. My prognosis is good, excellent even, but saying I’m cured is simply not possible, because this is a very complicated business.

About 30% of men who have a radical prostatectomy like I did will have what the profession calls “biochemical recurrence”.

Here’s the US Cancer Institute’s explanation of what that means:

A rise in the blood level of PSA (prostate-specific antigen) in prostate cancer patients after treatment with surgery or radiation. Biochemical recurrence may occur in patients who do not have symptoms. It may mean that the cancer has come back. Also called biochemical relapse and PSA failure.

How likely am I to be among the 30%?

Highly unlikely, it would seem. The reason is the cancer in my prostate was caught early, before it had time to surface at any of the margins of the organ, which is the bad thing that can happen as the cancer grows.

Once there are “marginals”, there is the chance of the tumour spreading into lymph nodes and the nearby seminal vesicles.

Here’s how MedicineNet.com defines seminal vesicles:

Seminal vesicle: A structure in the male that is about 5 centimeters (2 inches) long and is located behind the bladder and above the prostate gland. The seminal vesicles contribute fluid to the ejaculate.

Wikipedia says this about lymph nodes:

A Lymph node…is an organ consisting of many types of cells, and is a part of the lymphatic system. Lymph nodes are found all through the body, and act as filters or traps for foreign particles. They contain white blood cells. Thus they are important in the proper functioning of the immune system.

So, if you get cancer into nearby parts of the body like the vesicles or into the lymph system – and thereby spread through the body – the chances of advanced cancer increase.

There are drug and radiotherapy treatments for such eventualities, but the chances of long-term cure are proportionately lower.

Why am I waiting 17 weeks for the PSA test, and why is it done after the cancerous prostate has been removed?

To rehearse some earlier facts from my case, my PSA levels have never been high. The test prior to diagnosis showed .77, when up to 4 or 5 would have been acceptable for my age.

I have a friend whose PSA has been rising and is now about 20, but three biopsies have failed to find any sign of cancer. In my case, low PSA did not mean I did not have cancer (I did).

The wait is to allow my system to settle down, since surgical intervention can release the antigens into the system and temporarily raise the PSA in a way that is not helpful to diagnosis.

After five months (the operation was on March 25), that all should have settled down and an accurate reading should be possible.

What are we hoping for? Well, a nil result. Zilch. That would mean no biochemical recurrence…and no cancer.

The other thing in my favour is the low Gleason grade given to my tumour: at 6/10 it is the lowest meaningful result used. That means the cancer was of a low aggression type. It would have taken years to migrate out of the prostate.

So. I’m hopeful of the nearest thing to a cure you can get.

No doubt I’ll need to continue with the PSA tests for a few years just to be sure. Biochemical recurrence can occur some time after surgery. But in my case, it seems unlikely.

Here’s hoping…

A recent web item said spouses and partners end up more worried about cancer recurrence than the patients. So it’s time to find out what Lin thinks of all this.

NEXT: Another side to the story

The infantile leftists of Lancaster UAF and Norfolk Unity like to keep themselves busy. Currently they are fulminating  against the National Liberal Party (NLP) of which I am a member. They are worried by the NLP decision to target Lib Dem marginals at the next General Election.

They say:-

“Ignoring the feeble attempt at self-justification as to why a fascist party lays claim to the title “Liberal”, the first paragraph of Completely Blank’s posting leaves no doubt whatsoever that the National Liberal Party intends to go into the next general election purposed on conning votes away from the Liberal Democrats by confusing itself with the mainstream party, and – they hope – losing the sitting Liberal Democrats their seats.

There can be, and is, no other reason for the NLP to target itself so specifically – only against Liberal Democrats, and only in marginals where a small number of votes will decide the sitting MPs’ fates.

No other no-hope party, to the best of our knowledge, has ever gone into a general election fixed purely on unseating MPs by use of deceit and obsfucation.

In our opinion this amounts to a clear intention to mislead voters and to abuse the democratic process on the part of a nasty little organisation made up of no-hopers and fantasists closely connected with the BNP and complicit in the running of the racist party’s bogus front groups.

It is also reason enough for the Electoral Commission to strip Third Way of the right to campaign under the spurious “National Liberal Party” title.

We have already alerted the Liberal Democrats to the underhand intentions of the squalid NLP, but visitors (of all political persuasions) to this website can help by complaining to the Electoral Commission, and by bringing this post to the attention of Liberal Democrat MPs and LibDem organisations.”

Of course the National Liberal Party is by no means ‘Fascist’. The NLP opposes foreign military adventures, supports direct democracy and co-operative ownership, has an open membership for all ethnic, cultural and faith  backgrounds and advocates civil rights against an increasingly interventionist State. This is not fascism but the exact opposite!

As for BNP ‘front groups’ we presume they refer to the Trade Union Solidarity which is independent and open to people of all political persuasions.

Still, let’s leave aside their childish name-calling and look at the substance of their argument.

The NLP has stated that it will target Lib Dem marginals for good reasons. The NLP wants, in fact, to highlight the difference between our Liberalism and theirs.  What better way than to do this in an exciting marginal contest where maximum media attention might be expected? Far from seeking to ‘mislead’ voters by pretending to be the LIb Dems (as LUAF implies)  the whole point is to show that a different form of Liberalism exists. This is what will be stressed in campaign literature. No one Party owns the term ‘Liberal’ just as no one Party owns the terms ‘Socialist’, ‘Workers’, ‘Democratic’ or ‘English’.

Parties registered using the term ‘Socialist’ include:-

• Socialist Alliance
  Socialist Equality Party
  Socialist Labour Party
  Socialist Party of Great Britain [The]
  Socialist Party (Northern Ireland)
  Socialist Studies Party (1904)
  Socialist Unity

Parties registered using the term ‘Workers’ include:-

• Workers’ Liberty
  Workers Revolutionary Party
  Workers’ Party [The]

Parties registered using the term ‘Democratic’ include:-

• Democratic Party [The]
  Democratic Socialist Alliance – People Before Profit
  Democratic Unionist Party

Parties registered using the term ‘England’ or ‘English’ include:-

• England First Party
  English Democrats Party
  English National Party
  English Progressive and Liberty Party [The]
  Englishindependenceparty.com

Additionally as LUAF themselves admit in addition to the NLP two other registered parties use the term ‘Liberal’. These are the Liberal Democrats and the Liberal Party.

Do LUAF really think that the electorate is unable to distinguish between Parties using a term within their name which is the same as another? There is a lot of media coverage and campaigning during elections. The general public are not as stupid as LUAF implies. Any vote for the NLP will be a positive vote for a different form of Liberalism. If the Lib Dems lose seats as a result that is democracy in action. The NLP has already beaten them in local elections.

LUAF say that the National Liberal party should be “stripped” of its name by the State. No such thing will happen. They have no logical case, they have no legal case, in fact they are fantasists.

The infantile leftists of Lancaster UAF and Norfolk Unity like to keep themselves busy. Currently they are fulminating  against the National Liberal Party (NLP) of which I am a member. They are worried by the NLP decision to target Lib Dem marginals at the next General Election.

They say:-

“Ignoring the feeble attempt at self-justification as to why a fascist party lays claim to the title “Liberal”, the first paragraph of Completely Blank’s posting leaves no doubt whatsoever that the National Liberal Party intends to go into the next general election purposed on conning votes away from the Liberal Democrats by confusing itself with the mainstream party, and – they hope – losing the sitting Liberal Democrats their seats.

There can be, and is, no other reason for the NLP to target itself so specifically – only against Liberal Democrats, and only in marginals where a small number of votes will decide the sitting MPs’ fates.

No other no-hope party, to the best of our knowledge, has ever gone into a general election fixed purely on unseating MPs by use of deceit and obsfucation.

In our opinion this amounts to a clear intention to mislead voters and to abuse the democratic process on the part of a nasty little organisation made up of no-hopers and fantasists closely connected with the BNP and complicit in the running of the racist party’s bogus front groups.

It is also reason enough for the Electoral Commission to strip Third Way of the right to campaign under the spurious “National Liberal Party” title.

We have already alerted the Liberal Democrats to the underhand intentions of the squalid NLP, but visitors (of all political persuasions) to this website can help by complaining to the Electoral Commission, and by bringing this post to the attention of Liberal Democrat MPs and LibDem organisations.”

Of course the National Liberal Party is by no means ‘Fascist’. The NLP opposes foreign military adventures, supports direct democracy and co-operative ownership, has an open membership for all ethnic, cultural and faith  backgrounds and advocates civil rights against an increasingly interventionist State. This is not fascism but the exact opposite!

As for BNP ‘front groups’ we presume they refer to the Trade Union Solidarity which is independent and open to people of all political persuasions.

Still, let’s leave aside their childish name-calling and look at the substance of their argument.

The NLP has stated that it will target Lib Dem marginals for good reasons. The NLP wants, in fact, to highlight the difference between our Liberalism and theirs.  What better way than to do this in an exciting marginal contest where maximum media attention might be expected? Far from seeking to ‘mislead’ voters by pretending to be the LIb Dems (as LUAF implies)  the whole point is to show that a different form of Liberalism exists. This is what will be stressed in campaign literature. No one Party owns the term ‘Liberal’ just as no one Party owns the terms ‘Socialist’, ‘Workers’, ‘Democratic’ or ‘English’.

Parties registered using the term ‘Socialist’ include:-

• Socialist Alliance
  Socialist Equality Party
  Socialist Labour Party
  Socialist Party of Great Britain [The]
  Socialist Party (Northern Ireland)
  Socialist Studies Party (1904)
  Socialist Unity

Parties registered using the term ‘Workers’ include:-

• Workers’ Liberty
  Workers Revolutionary Party
  Workers’ Party [The]

Parties registered using the term ‘Democratic’ include:-

• Democratic Party [The]
  Democratic Socialist Alliance – People Before Profit
  Democratic Unionist Party

Parties registered using the term ‘England’ or ‘English’ include:-

• England First Party
  English Democrats Party
  English National Party
  English Progressive and Liberty Party [The]
  Englishindependenceparty.com

Additionally as LUAF themselves admit in addition to the NLP two other registered parties use the term ‘Liberal’. These are the Liberal Democrats and the Liberal Party.

Do LUAF really think that the electorate is unable to distinguish between Parties using a term within their name which is the same as another? There is a lot of media coverage and campaigning during elections. The general public are not as stupid as LUAF implies. Any vote for the NLP will be a positive vote for a different form of Liberalism. If the Lib Dems lose seats as a result that is democracy in action. The NLP has already beaten them in local elections.

LUAF say that the National Liberal party should be “stripped” of its name by the State. No such thing will happen. They have no logical case, they have no legal case, in fact they are fantasists.

The infantile leftists of Lancaster UAF and Norfolk Unity like to keep themselves busy. Currently they are fulminating  against the National Liberal Party (NLP) of which I am a member. They are worried by the NLP decision to target Lib Dem marginals at the next General Election.

They say:-

“Ignoring the feeble attempt at self-justification as to why a fascist party lays claim to the title “Liberal”, the first paragraph of Completely Blank’s posting leaves no doubt whatsoever that the National Liberal Party intends to go into the next general election purposed on conning votes away from the Liberal Democrats by confusing itself with the mainstream party, and – they hope – losing the sitting Liberal Democrats their seats.

There can be, and is, no other reason for the NLP to target itself so specifically – only against Liberal Democrats, and only in marginals where a small number of votes will decide the sitting MPs’ fates.

No other no-hope party, to the best of our knowledge, has ever gone into a general election fixed purely on unseating MPs by use of deceit and obsfucation.

In our opinion this amounts to a clear intention to mislead voters and to abuse the democratic process on the part of a nasty little organisation made up of no-hopers and fantasists closely connected with the BNP and complicit in the running of the racist party’s bogus front groups.

It is also reason enough for the Electoral Commission to strip Third Way of the right to campaign under the spurious “National Liberal Party” title.

We have already alerted the Liberal Democrats to the underhand intentions of the squalid NLP, but visitors (of all political persuasions) to this website can help by complaining to the Electoral Commission, and by bringing this post to the attention of Liberal Democrat MPs and LibDem organisations.”

Of course the National Liberal Party is by no means ‘Fascist’. The NLP opposes foreign military adventures, supports direct democracy and co-operative ownership, has an open membership for all ethnic, cultural and faith  backgrounds and advocates civil rights against an increasingly interventionist State. This is not fascism but the exact opposite!

As for BNP ‘front groups’ we presume they refer to the Trade Union Solidarity which is independent and open to people of all political persuasions.

Still, let’s leave aside their childish name-calling and look at the substance of their argument.

The NLP has stated that it will target Lib Dem marginals for good reasons. The NLP wants, in fact, to highlight the difference between our Liberalism and theirs.  What better way than to do this in an exciting marginal contest where maximum media attention might be expected? Far from seeking to ‘mislead’ voters by pretending to be the LIb Dems (as LUAF implies)  the whole point is to show that a different form of Liberalism exists. This is what will be stressed in campaign literature. No one Party owns the term ‘Liberal’ just as no one Party owns the terms ‘Socialist’, ‘Workers’, ‘Democratic’ or ‘English’.

Parties registered using the term ‘Socialist’ include:-

• Socialist Alliance
  Socialist Equality Party
  Socialist Labour Party
  Socialist Party of Great Britain [The]
  Socialist Party (Northern Ireland)
  Socialist Studies Party (1904)
  Socialist Unity

Parties registered using the term ‘Workers’ include:-

• Workers’ Liberty
  Workers Revolutionary Party
  Workers’ Party [The]

Parties registered using the term ‘Democratic’ include:-

• Democratic Party [The]
  Democratic Socialist Alliance – People Before Profit
  Democratic Unionist Party

Parties registered using the term ‘England’ or ‘English’ include:-

• England First Party
  English Democrats Party
  English National Party
  English Progressive and Liberty Party [The]
  Englishindependenceparty.com

Additionally as LUAF themselves admit in addition to the NLP two other registered parties use the term ‘Liberal’. These are the Liberal Democrats and the Liberal Party.

Do LUAF really think that the electorate is unable to distinguish between Parties using a term within their name which is the same as another? There is a lot of media coverage and campaigning during elections. The general public are not as stupid as LUAF implies. Any vote for the NLP will be a positive vote for a different form of Liberalism. If the Lib Dems lose seats as a result that is democracy in action. The NLP has already beaten them in local elections.

LUAF say that the National Liberal party should be “stripped” of its name by the State. No such thing will happen. They have no logical case, they have no legal case, in fact they are fantasists.

The infantile leftists of Lancaster UAF and Norfolk Unity like to keep themselves busy. Currently they are fulminating  against the National Liberal Party (NLP) of which I am a member. They are worried by the NLP decision to target Lib Dem marginals at the next General Election.

They say:-

“Ignoring the feeble attempt at self-justification as to why a fascist party lays claim to the title “Liberal”, the first paragraph of Completely Blank’s posting leaves no doubt whatsoever that the National Liberal Party intends to go into the next general election purposed on conning votes away from the Liberal Democrats by confusing itself with the mainstream party, and – they hope – losing the sitting Liberal Democrats their seats.

There can be, and is, no other reason for the NLP to target itself so specifically – only against Liberal Democrats, and only in marginals where a small number of votes will decide the sitting MPs’ fates.

No other no-hope party, to the best of our knowledge, has ever gone into a general election fixed purely on unseating MPs by use of deceit and obsfucation.

In our opinion this amounts to a clear intention to mislead voters and to abuse the democratic process on the part of a nasty little organisation made up of no-hopers and fantasists closely connected with the BNP and complicit in the running of the racist party’s bogus front groups.

It is also reason enough for the Electoral Commission to strip Third Way of the right to campaign under the spurious “National Liberal Party” title.

We have already alerted the Liberal Democrats to the underhand intentions of the squalid NLP, but visitors (of all political persuasions) to this website can help by complaining to the Electoral Commission, and by bringing this post to the attention of Liberal Democrat MPs and LibDem organisations.”

Of course the National Liberal Party is by no means ‘Fascist’. The NLP opposes foreign military adventures, supports direct democracy and co-operative ownership, has an open membership for all ethnic, cultural and faith  backgrounds and advocates civil rights against an increasingly interventionist State. This is not fascism but the exact opposite!

As for BNP ‘front groups’ we presume they refer to the Trade Union Solidarity which is independent and open to people of all political persuasions.

Still, let’s leave aside their childish name-calling and look at the substance of their argument.

The NLP has stated that it will target Lib Dem marginals for good reasons. The NLP wants, in fact, to highlight the difference between our Liberalism and theirs.  What better way than to do this in an exciting marginal contest where maximum media attention might be expected? Far from seeking to ‘mislead’ voters by pretending to be the LIb Dems (as LUAF implies)  the whole point is to show that a different form of Liberalism exists. This is what will be stressed in campaign literature. No one Party owns the term ‘Liberal’ just as no one Party owns the terms ‘Socialist’, ‘Workers’, ‘Democratic’ or ‘English’.

Parties registered using the term ‘Socialist’ include:-

• Socialist Alliance
  Socialist Equality Party
  Socialist Labour Party
  Socialist Party of Great Britain [The]
  Socialist Party (Northern Ireland)
  Socialist Studies Party (1904)
  Socialist Unity

Parties registered using the term ‘Workers’ include:-

• Workers’ Liberty
  Workers Revolutionary Party
  Workers’ Party [The]

Parties registered using the term ‘Democratic’ include:-

• Democratic Party [The]
  Democratic Socialist Alliance – People Before Profit
  Democratic Unionist Party

Parties registered using the term ‘England’ or ‘English’ include:-

• England First Party
  English Democrats Party
  English National Party
  English Progressive and Liberty Party [The]
  Englishindependenceparty.com

Additionally as LUAF themselves admit in addition to the NLP two other registered parties use the term ‘Liberal’. These are the Liberal Democrats and the Liberal Party.

Do LUAF really think that the electorate is unable to distinguish between Parties using a term within their name which is the same as another? There is a lot of media coverage and campaigning during elections. The general public are not as stupid as LUAF implies. Any vote for the NLP will be a positive vote for a different form of Liberalism. If the Lib Dems lose seats as a result that is democracy in action. The NLP has already beaten them in local elections.

LUAF say that the National Liberal party should be “stripped” of its name by the State. No such thing will happen. They have no logical case, they have no legal case, in fact they are fantasists.

Here we are again in a few months the whole world waiting to see that GREAT COMEDY of the EUROVISION 2008 SONG CONTEST. What the hell wants Greece to be there, ( and not only Greece but all the western European countries including Cyprus as well) we got a first position a few years ago with Paparizou thats all, the rest is only our taxes money that ERT uses to promote some unknown “artists” promoted from some TV channels and Greek record companies. Who is Kalomoira or Kakomira, we never knew about her until she was promoted from the usual Greek channel 3 years ago, after she won a stuped “American idol type” show. She even become a co-presenter with another “Blond`Greek Beauty”, an ex unknown flower pot of another old TV show and today a big name in the morning stuped shows off the Greek television breakfast TV and one day from that show she mad some bad references about our island because of her ignorance and she had to give a “pardon” after people of Leros got really ungry . The other person elected as candidate was someone with the name Martakis (who;) and the other one is a Pagona or Chrispa (Που τους βρισκουν ρε παιδια)…… . Finally I personally with a few hundred more millions of western Europeans believe that Greece as well as France, UK, BENELUX, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and all the rest of WEST EUROPE should stop taking part in that rediculus contest that have become an internal affair among the east European countries and the countries of former USSR and former Yugosavia, Albania and Turkey. I believe West Europe Greee and Cyprus should stop partisipate in that cuture insulting circus.

 Now Watch some really good music from the early Eurovision