Earl Aelfheah

I remember Cameron promising stability too. That worked out marvellously.

I'm voting for my dining room chair. It is both suitably strong and stable, which focus groups have reliably informed me are the key attributes voters are looking for.

He's pretty clear who'll pay for it- all of us, but especially the better off, through higher taxation. That is the price of living in a civilised society imo. Labour also propose to borrow against future investments. The conservatives on the other hand would continue cutting or contracting out as many public services as possible and giving tax breaks to the richest. They have also ensured that we will leave Europe and may well yet preside over the break up of the UK. May has been clear that she will lead us out of the EU without a trade deal, if she decides it is 'necessary'. We have lost more than a decade of growth following the banking crisis because the conservatives, rather than putting an economic stimulus in place, decided to use it as cover to push their ideological pursuits (shrinking the state). One has to decide which approach they think is more likely to grow the economy and also improve the quality of life of the greatest number of people.

Strong, stable, strong, stable, strong, stable, strong, stable, strong, stable, strong, stable, strong, stable, strong, stable, strong, stable, strong, stable, strong, stable, strong, stable. [REPEAT TO FADE]

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Quite - you don't like him personally. > > > I'm not sure I buy the idea that just because a > person has done certain things, then it's > disliking them personally if you disagree with > their actions. > > Corbyn is his actions, his words and deeds, like > any of us are. To dismiss opposition on that basis > seems a false premise to me; indeed it allows us > to excuse people like George Galloway and Nigel > Farage, because the things they said and did are > things they personally did. > > I may be misunderstanding you (feel free to > correct me if I am), but surely we should be > judging Corby on the basis of what he's done? We > do the same for any other politician? Why are > people saying Corbyn gets a pass? I'm just trying to wind up Quids tbh

.. the money is mine.

Quite - you don't like him personally.

This:

Unfortunately that's true Loz. Lots of people do vote on personalities. Too much reality TV perhaps.

.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's all about your ABCs - anyone but > conservatives ... I mean look at the current mess we're in.

It's all about your ABCs - anyone but conservatives

If you want to base your decision on more than personality, try this http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com (I should say, I have no idea who's behind this, or how it's been designed so it could be nonsense)

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Come on, what sort of a politician DOESN'T want a > job in government? Jeremy Corbyn 😉

This: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/25/vote-labour-jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Labour.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Brulysses Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So what did they think the original tweet would > > do, Mark? I am not 'stirring up disrespect', I > am > > calling out a commercial organisation for a > > sh*tty, tasteless tweet about something which is > a > > serious problem, which is exactly what this > forum > > is for...idiot. > > Did you speak to them directly before making your > decision to boycott? Because I reckon the > responsible thing to do would be to give them the > chance to speak in their own defence before > condemning them for something it seems (note I say > 'seems') for which they are not to blame. ^this

It's a misjudged joke. Not particularly funny and in slightly bad taste. Maybe just DM them and suggest they might want to rethink / remove it.

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Driving at 20mph instead of 30mph takes one minute > longer per mile - so a ten mile journey across > London will take 10 minutes longer - assuming > 30mph non-stop from start to finish. And that's the point - one doesn't travel without stopping. When you cycle, quite often you'll observe the cars zooming off at one set of lights only to catch them up at the next. The fact is that sauntering along on a bicycle watching cars disregarding the speed limit, it is quite apparent that it does not get them to their destination more quickly. But they would of course swear it does.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DulwichLondoner Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Yes, but if driving at 30mph lets you spend > less > > time at red traffic lights, then you'll be > > polluting less. Also, small differences add up, > > once multiplied by the number of drivers in > > London. > > Is there any evidence that at 30MPH you'd be > avoiding red lights? Surely you'd just be > arriving at the next red light more quickly and > spending longer with the engine idling, having > used more fuel to get up to 30MPH before braking > again. If the lights are synced for 20MPH flow, > 20MPH will be the best speed at which to take > them. There is no reason to think that driving faster means avoiding red lights.

We shouldn't be looking to increase vehicle speeds on London?s roads but rather to smooth flow and reduce ?stop-start driving?. Because drivers cut their spacing as braking distances contract, it might even be the case that more vehicles can use the available road space, leading to a reduction in standing traffic. It's possible that lower speeds lead to better 'flow', more predictable journey times and even lower emissions. Or maybe not - I don't know what the evidence is either way, but certainty wouldn't assume that faster speeds in London necessarily means faster journeys.

I didn't know they were pedestrianising Oxford Street - that's great (about time too). Seems fair enough that people shouldn't cycle in a pedestrian area tbh. As long as there is plenty of bike parking around the border of the zone, then fine.

It's a unclear in the link. I would have thought the remuneration level is a fairly important question to clarity in the job advert (unless money isn't really an issue to potential applicants of course).

Mike skinner's well safe innit fam.

Is that unpaid? For 22 months?