DaveR

"Try telling that to Ed Balls - UKIP has let tories win or especially hold plenty of marginals..that's the point" I'm not convinced by this. It assumes that UKIP voters in the marginals are either defectors from Labour, or are Tory defectors who in the absence of UKIP would have voted Labour, and I don't buy that, particularly when Labour is perceived as being more pro-Europe and softer on immigration than the Tories. It's also not borne out by what little data I have seen from the Labour target seats, where generally the Tories have increased their poll at the expense of the Lib Dems.

"And 1.5m Scots have 56 seats, whilst 3.5m UKIP voters have 1. Now I don't want more UKIP Seats, but if you want a democracy then that has to change." ...and 2.5 million Lib Dems have 8 seats. There's always been a valid argument in favour of some sort of PR based voting system, and there's certainly nothing uniquely beneficial about FPTP, but you have to wonder whether UKIP would have got as many votes if there was any real expectation that they would translate into seats. It is significant that they couldn't win a single seat from either the Tories or Labour, nor hold onto Rochester.

"I was naive and just hadn't realised how much of the Labour vote would go to UKIP." That had a minimal effect on the overall result though - UKIP took a lot of votes from Labour in safe Labour seats, but didn't come close to winning any of them. The story of the election, whilst surprising in light of the polling, is pretty clear. The Lib Dems got wiped out but this benefited the Tories as much as Labour, and Labour got wiped out in Scotland without managing to make any real impact on English Tory seats. I haven't seen a single seat that Labour won on a big swing from the Tories, and that pretty much says it all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3070820/Graham-Taylor-told-no-uncertain-terms-FA-officials-not-pick-black-players-England.html Graham Taylor denies that he was told by FA to limit the number of black players he picked. Taylor responded*: "My record speaks for itself. I picked shit players for England regardless of their colour - I mean, I picked both Geoff Thomas and Keith Curle - QED" *not really

"I'm not sure if I agree, DR. I don't really see the Lib Dems as linear descendents of the original Liberal party. They have more of a Social Liberal ideology" If you poll Lib Dem members and aggregate the results I think you'll find a complete mess, rather than any particular ideology, but the leadership and prominent MPs have always included plenty who are properly aware of the history and heritage of UK Liberalism. They just never shouted about it because they knew the wider membership were a bit flaky. The Lib Dem conference was always notorious for sheer looniness and the leadership getting a mauling from the grassroots.

Clegg is a bright guy and a true Liberal i.e. he actually understands the political origins of the Liberal Party, and that free trade and individual liberty have been core concepts. That's why he understood that there is actually a natural fit with the 'liberal wing' of the Tory party. Unfortunately, the Lib Dems as a party are not particularly in tune with him - on many issues much of their membership are essentially Labour (and 'old Labour' at that) - and their electoral success has been based largely on being smart and/or dirty operators at the constituency level, rather than a national political message. I still think another Con-Lib coalition would be by far the best outcome, and I'm hoping like hell the polls are wrong and the Lib Dems manage to hold on to 35 or so seats. NB - I don't think it's really arguable that Marxism is not inherently authoritarian - Marx himself derided the concept of individual rights and freedoms as illusory because of the inherent power/class relationships of a capitalist society, and collectivism (and by extension communism) was explicitly a contrary approach. Marxist devotees have always argued that the Soviet Union perverted communist theory, and insofar as the Soviet leaders in practice set themselves up as a new ruling class, that criticism obviously has force, but the denial of individual liberty (and the idea that dissidents are 'class traitors') comes straight from the big man.

> God help us all? Well I suppose you could vote > Tory and then it would just be god help you if you > are poor, sick, young, unemployed or disabled. Does anyone have any views on this? Who would people that fall into any of the above categories vote for? And do Tory fans think those people will get a good deal if they vote to keep them in? I have a view. Firstly, everybody in the country has an interest in good economic management, because every penny govt spends is ultimately derived from private sector profit, and that requires stability, above all. Secondly, if you are poor or unemployed but you really don't want to be, your best chance rests with a healthy private economy. Thirdly, if you're disabled you are more empowered as a consumer that as a state number. Finally, if you are young you are currently being f**cked by all of the main parties equally. It is a perfectly valid choice for anyone to vote Tory, which is not to say that everyone will want to. But again, left-wing ideologues will tell you that the Tories are not just wrong but wicked. Coming from an ex-miner in South Wales that might be understandable, though still wrong. Coming from a pampered Home Counties boy like Carnell it's laughable. Edited to add: This article pretty much says it all: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e61ce174-ea94-11e4-96ec-00144feab7de.html#axzz3YoMgHxnC

If you look at the bottom of his post, Lee works for Vodafone in "Social Media Comms". I guess Vodafone have a system for picking up when they are getting dissed in forum/blog/twitter world. Depending on how you look at it, it's either creepy online stalking or sensible modern customer relations; I tend to the latter view.

"Why do the left wing use the term 'progressive' now. Has 'left wing' become too toxic a brand?" Yes, is the short answer. The interesting answer (see my post above) is that in the majority of the UK it always has been. You will also hear reference to there being a 'natural majority' in favour of 'progressive politics'. When progressive is given its real meaning in this context, the natural majority is every bit as illusory as the 'conservative' or 'traditionalist' majority confidently claimed by UKIP and the right wing of the Tory party. It's all horseshit - the British electorate (or at least the UK electorate without the urban Scots) are firmly rooted in the centre, and have followed (or alternatively driven) that centre as it has moved to the right economically and to the left socially (although left/right tags are becoming meaningless as a consequence). The majority of the UK electorate is pragmatic and these days that means, for example, not keen on unions but OK with gay marriage. That's why ideologically driven lefties are forced to be rude about them: "a centrist doctrine of ideoligically vacant populism"

Every Labour voter should remember every time they spit out the word 'Blair' as if it's somehow poisonous that he was the first Labour leader to get a majority of English seats since Clement Attlee in 1946. TB made the modern Labour party electable, and they've never forgiven him for it. There's only really one outcome for this election that will make a difference, and that's if Labour + SNP > 325 seats. That would put Milliband in an impossible position and, I suspect, lead to open warfare between the left and the centre in the Labour movement, if not in the parliamentary party. If we end up with a Lab/SNP coalition then God help us all.

"You don't have to look futher than the nearest war memorial to see what's wrong with that." It's been a while since we've had a Godwin. It's not that surprising given the general over-excitement of the post. I liked this: "Which is why we're now living in the looming shadow of the obscenely hubristic outpost of a slave-trading nation and busy constructing a city-state for another oil-rich power's embassy." in the context of the re-development of Iceland, Lordship Lane. Planners are caught between developers (whose tactics are pretty accurately described in Burbage's otherwise somewhat hallucinatory post, and who know exactly what they want), residents (who either don't know what they want or are nimby fanatics) and politicians local and central (who have to pretend they're trying to please everyone). If there's enough money at stake the courts sort it out, usually pleasing no-one. In another universe these matters might be discussed calmly and rationally with give and take on both sides, but that's a universe far, far away (to coin a phrase).

http://www.rebotrampolines.co.uk/ These are good, and appear to be virtually indestructible, judging from the abuse that ours has had over the years.

http://www.drinkshopdo.com/whats-on/2014/july/house-of-toast

Millbrook make fantastic mattresses: http://www.millbrook-beds.co.uk/ They don't sell direct but available from various shops and online.

Fly to Nantes (or Brest) and hire a car. Driving either way is (as confirmed above) a whole day, and not a short, relaxing or particularly cheap one. You can fly from Gatwick, the flight is less than an hour, you will be off the plane and in your hire car within 45 minutes or so of touching down, and you can get to anywhere in Brittany within a couple of hours max.

I'm also not sure how it is somehow morally pure to seek to persuade the council to effectively deny to the Dulwich Estate a legal right that they specifically reserved in a freely reached agreement with another party because, you disagree with the terms of that original agreement, or because you disagree with the terms of the trust by which the Estate is legally required to act.

Orbit remit or XE transfer; both usually have good rates esp for large transfers

If you want to take a bus to Elephant the 63 from the bottom of Barry Road is much quicker than the 12 (although the roadworks on Rye Lane are slowing everything up at the moment)

I don't think the Lib Dems will lose anywhere near the number of seats that is being predicted based on their expected share of the vote. There are plenty of seats that have been Lib Dem now for 15+ years with big majorities, and they are notoriously good at playing local politics. The key issue seems to me to be how many seats will the Tories lose because UKIP split their vote. If they can keep it to no more than a dozen, I'd expect Tories + Lib Dems to have a narrow majority, and if they can form a government, they will.

I would be surprised if UKIP end up with more than 5 seats which would make them pretty much irrelevant. I'm beginning to think that the maths make another Tory-Lib Dem coalition the most likely outcome, albeit it would probably split the Lib Dems.

There is also the Micro Sprite, which is a two wheeled scooter but not a 'stunt' scooter. You might also want to consider a different brand; the Mini Micro is way better than any of the alternatives for that age group, but the gap narrows as they get bigger. Two brands worth considering are JD Bug and Razor - they both make two-wheeled aluminium scooters that are the right size for a 5 year old and are good brands. Not quite as good a product as the 'Micro' equivalent, but half the price or less. My kids have had all three brands and they were all good.

There isn't anywhere in Chinatown I can think of where kids are not welcome, and as already mentioned on a Sunday lunchtime you can expect to see loads of families with three or even four generations sat together. New World is a good choice, I think the best quality dim sum is at Joy King Lau which is just off Lisle Street, Dumplings Legend on Gerrard Street unsurprisingly does really good dumplings (and you can see them being made), or if you fancy roast duck go to Four Seasons.

I'm not interested in your point, I was just correcting your mistake. Blah blah blah. Edited to add: I'm not going to bother correcting your mistake about hearsay (the spelling and the meaning) as not relevant to the subject matter.

" "Ultimately if a dog makes you feel like you are in serious danger of being hurt then it can be classified as being 'out of control' " No it can't. The law deals in fact, not perception" This is wrong. The relevant statute includes a definition: "For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person" So an irrational belief that you are in danger won't do, but it is (definitively) a question of perception. And it goes without saying that it is the perception of the person who is in the presence of the dog that matters, not the perception of someone posting on an internet forum who thinks they know better.

I've made it clear that I don't have a view on this other than that bad science should not feature, so I'm not going to be lobbying anybody. A mast near Barry Road would come in handy though.