Huguenot

"the landlord can't actually afford to lower rents" That one. Again. *Shakes head in disbelief* If they're higher than the rest of the market, no-one will occupy it so they lose the house. That's how markets work. You don't rent a house because you feel sorry for the landlord, you rent it because you like it and you have the dispoable income and inclination to pay the price.

Either way - it's not the foreigners and Africans stealing all the gold is it DJKQ? Not much use explaining it to Tarot, I fear the lights are on but no-one's home.

I was comparing the different employment philosophies of France and the UK and the consequences it had on 'productivity' measures. I don't want this to turn into a debate about Thatcher.

Ha ha! Your interpretation of the events is erudite but I feel it's too educated. It's far more likely that people voted in the way that Cameron's deal with News International was engineered to deliver. The price the nation paid for that deal was the loss of electoral reform and Tory agreement to the Sky TV deal that allows Rupert Murdoch to dominate our entire media landscape. Cameron has has not only ripped democracy from our hands, he has even limited our ability to be any better informed. Murdoch has been influencing elections for years, now he owns them. It's a tragedy at so many levels

For some peculiar reason Festival Fair makes me think it's on the Southbank. If I'd have seen promotion for it I would have assumed that - so I totally agree with Rastapopoulos. Having said that I'm glad it's Fair, not Fayre - which makes me want to kill people slowly. Perhaps there's a way of trading shop window space for publicity for the stores on LL? You did sound like a person who responds aggressively to constructive advice there Angela ;-)

:)) I'm glad that we're geeting to fonder memories. I've a voting record that goes Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem. I didn't get the chance to vote in '79 or '83, but it would have been Conservative and would have been Maggie. I tend to agree with Marmora Man - it's not the business of government to 'own' jobs. I think it's the role of government to create a stable, efficient and effective economic environment to encourage jobs - and to create public services that may entail employing people - but not to own airlines and gas companies. Tatcher's era was a painful period for many, but so were the 70s.

"Thatcher's policies destroyed my father and I can't find any part of me that will care when she is gone." I can understand how painful this would feel, but I think it's a statement without context. I feel it would have been fairer to say that unionised labour had destroyed the fabric of the nation so comprehensively by 1979 that they were masters of their own demise. The unions became so hated that the nation voted in favour of, and stood behind, any politician who could break their malevolvent throttling grasp around the throat of our existence. I don't believe that Thatcher's policies destroyed your father. Thatcher was a product of a generation that was pissed off with being the humiliated slapped bitch of a wife of the unions. You may have little recollection of the disease of the 70s, but I spent so many nights in darkness that the unions might as well have transported us to Bhutan. Your father was destroyed by the people that he believed loved him the most.

Cameron isn't credible PM material, the knowledge of him representing the United Kingdom on the world stage fills me with horror. Even the Yanks, our most important strategic partner (as opposed to the EU as economic partner) think that Cameron is too lightweight to bother about. I can't think of a better electoral reform than AV. PR breaks the link with the electorate and puts the party elite back in charge of selecting representation instead of the people. This destroys accountability and we're back into the jobs for life mire. STV is always going to be 'too complicated' if people find AV too complicated.

Eh? I voted Lib Dem this time and Labour the time before. Totally agree re. Labour ignoring voting reform. Snouts in the trough etc. There were Labour MPs in the 'No' camp this time around. Frankly if you think the case wasn't made for AV on this forum then you simply were refusing to read it. The 'No' corner simply repeated the same lies as always. These were frequently rationally refuted but the 'No' campaign continued to cynically repeat them.

Did you mean to post that under one of your other usernames?

Kept the Ozzie doctors fully employed... ;-)

Tarots running for a flush - we've had homophobia on here, and a whole thread dedicated to racist claptrap.

Well possibly, but then Scotland would have to repay their share of the tax generated from all those city boys. It's easy for petty nationalists to only see one side of the equation. It's a shame that all those high falutin nationalist sentiments should all boil down to sweaty greed from resentful ingrates. I can't help but feel that there is something childish about a desire to enforce national borders at the same time that globalisation is rendering them less meaningful. It deserves to be patronised.

I think trying to blame Britain's financial problems - generated by predominatly white English bankers - on 'immigrants and asylum seekers' is pretty much the lowest form of racism. 'Gordon Brown [...] sold our gold reserves to Africa' is pretty much the same kind of racism, and of course a complete nonsense. Tarot you are just fabricating reasons to hate foreigners. It's despicable behaviour. I don't know what goes on in your head, but this is shameful.

You know what I mean.

KidKruger I hear you. Unfortunately Acourt wouldn't he was quoted as saying "I reckon every n****r should be chopped up and left with stumps." and was imprisoned for trying to run over a black policeman, unprovoked and sober. I don't think you'll hear any attempts at justification from them. Guys like them make me want to reconsider the death sentence.

Jah, you can't just invite people who drink in bed. ;-) Actually, you can.

Sorry scratch that, we don't get 100% turnout, so for the BNP to get a seat under PW they'd need around 35,000 votes. I think you'll find they get more than 1 seat.

I didn't intend to say you were daft edcam, I wanted to say voting No because you thought you were going to get something better was daft, because it is. 'This nonsense about PR giving seats to the BNP is alarmist and has no basis in truth.' That only goes to show that you don't understand PR. In the UK you'd need only 50,000 votes to gain a seat under PR. At the moment they're scattered around the nation (apart from a hotbed in Burnley) and AV would have made it harder for them to get a seat than FPTP. However, if you think the BNP won't get 50,000 votes then you need to think again.

I don't really see what difference it makes who employs the sandwich man, it was always the same person, and we had great relationships. Here in Singers they're usually paid by the company, but they don't do sandwiches. They're all called Auntie (a bit like you Auntie Mimi), and they hang around your desk crapping on for hours about distant relatives with minor ailments and telling you that you shouldn't drink cold water. They make plenty of tea, badly, but they keep putting milk in mine. A tradition I've never entirely understood and it tastes like poo. The free food thing though, that's just about employee perks. It's a straightforward cost/benefit calculation on the part of the company. Don't have an opinion either way.

Eh? The whole point about the referendum is that it was yes or no. You can't have AV when there's only two choices. Actually, you can't have FPTP in a yes/no question either. It's a simple majority vote. A majority of voters. One of the gripes about FPTP is that it enforces two party states, hardly electoral choice. I'm getting truly bored with people posting rubbish on this subject and thinking they're clever.

If that was why you voted 'No' you're the daftest bloke in christendom. STV is more complicated, and PR gives seats to the BNP. You're never going to get that past the poor mugs who voted no yesterday Reform is now off the cards for a generation.

Yeah, it's bollocks isn't it? I'm not pro-AV because I'm Labour, I voted Lib Dem at the last election and will vote next time according to the issues at the time. Bring out compulsory voting - but the Tories won't do that because yoof don't vote the same way as predominantly right wing geriatrics ;-) Anyway MM, I promise to stop pulling your leg. For a bit.

Lol, never having traded favours in Singapore I wouldn't know. I'm not familiar with Tiger Tops, but then I'm not stuck in the 1950s ;-) MM, I know and love you, but your presentation of the 80/20 rule was just too rich not to pick. As much as it may not have been intended, it is a very clear reflection of current government policy that has failed miserably to connect with the goals and issues of the population. People still talk about 'cuts' in a government whose social spending is still growing. There's something priggish about the Conservatives, anmd your 80/20 rule did nothing to dispel it.

It sometimes feels like that, but as it happens: 2010 65.1% 2005 61.4% 2001 59.4% 1997 71.4% Tories win on another minority vote, and bullshit to pretend it's valid.