Loz

My money is on Elizabeth. Great granny's name, great-great granny's name and Kate's mum's middle name.

I think the professionally offended gave hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of free publicity to a company. Makes me laugh every time it happens.

keekybreeks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > male Heir Delivered > Female insurance delivered > Job done > > If I was kate, I would be shitting myself about > going in a limo in the near future Only if she starts shagging anything with a pulse.

I rather like the royals and think that they, on balance, are a good thing. But I do find it amazing that people actually stand outside hospitals waving placards and getting unnecessarily excited about this sort of stuff.

OK, I've managed to answer my own question after sussing out a friend's water meter. A 10mm hex key does the trick perfectly.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For me, in very general terms, the Tories are about a small state, individualism, trickle down > economics. Labour are more about stronger state services, collectivism, some redistribution of > wealth. > > The latter proposition is for me much more convincing, but others will have their own view > (or may entirely disagree with my characterisations of the main two parties). I think, in theory, you are correct. But Labour haven't really been about that for a good 20 years. I think Miliband would probably like a move more in that direction, but he knows that neither the party nor the electorate will back him on that. Besides, if the party really wanted that sort of policy base, they would have gone for Andy Burnham in the leadership election. Probably the most credible real lefty seen in the Labour leadership ranks for quite a while.

Well done, AM. I clicked close at about 30 seconds.

Anyone just see the mid-30's 'yoof' bloke on This Week. Finest crash and burn I've seen on TV in a long while.

I think you mean Thomas Piketty, quids.

Anyone else watching QT? So far, Cameron has pretty much failed to answer any questions, but done it rather brilliantly. Miliband was savaged and pretty much has ruled out deals with anyone bar the Lib Dems. So unless he's going to u-turn on those pledges, his chances of PM are going to be practicably nil.

aquarius moon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If there are only two choices (which there are), would it be Labour or Conservative? I've said it before and I'll say it again... there is really sweet FA difference. > Oh, and isn't it strange that so many people here have so many opinions about things that don't > really concern them? > And then there's the fox hunting ban........ Surely by your definition, you'd have to be a fox to be allowed an opinion on that one?

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also fail to see why an "arrangement" between two progressive parties Why do the left wing use the term 'progressive' now. Has 'left wing' become too toxic a brand?

That annoys me. It's like "yeah, we really believe in democracy, except we disagree with your opinions". It's just McCarthyism from a another direction. Give him a platform and then rip his miserable arguments to shreds - if you can't do that, then you really shouldn't be standing for parliament.

It's obvious, FHRoad. You may do 30mph for about 10 meters. :))

Before you give it away, I strongly suggest you securely delete the hard disk. I've used Darian's Boot and Nuke (http://www.dban.org/) before for this.

How do you know he's talking about your cat, then?

Does anyone know where you can buy a key for the new-type water meter stopcocks? They have a hexagonal shaft.

Has anyone got any Facebook advertising vouchers they could let me have?

I did a similar exercise on a different site and Lab, Tory and LibDem policies all corresponded to my views within a very small band of about 5%. Rather confirmed my view that all three are much of a muchness. With Gordon Brown, it is laughable to blame him for the 2008 financial crisis, but you can level the charge that he spent too much during the good years, so when the storm hit we were left rather exposed financially.

Part of the problem lies in the rules around forming a government. Even if he wins the most seats, until such time as Ed can show he can form a stable government (or "one that can retain the confidence of the House of Commons"), Cameron remains PM. And, at the moment, it looks like only a Lab + SNP deal can get them over the line, so Ed has to strike some sort of deal with them. But, yes, going to a second election wouldn't be in the interests of either Labour or the SNP. But who will blink first?

I originally read that hashtag as milffandom.

To be fair, Jeremy, I gave her 48 hours.

I heard an interesting theory on the Beeb today about current Tory fixation with the SNP. The main tactic is to highlight the danger of SNP holding some sort of leverage over a minority Labour government, in the hope that drives possible UKIPers back to the Tories. UKIP is polling about 12-14% at the moment - if they can get that down to 8-10% with the difference going to the Tories, that is a million more Tory votes. So, Tory MPs. But, 'the danger' also plays well with the Scots (who think it's a good idea) and drives them away from Labour to the SNP. So, less Labour MPs. Double win for the Tories.

I think there are web site for that sort of stuff, Jeremy.

True. To cut a long story short, I say we march through the barricades. We'll use chant No 1 then, only when you leave, we'll know we've struck gold.