Huguenot

"deliberately vague and confusing" As Yoda says, you feller one crazy paranoid is.

Understood about the fisking, but you're quite wrong on everything else. Each election is an independent local activity, not a general one. If you want to create a general balance in ethnicity or gender you have to foist a candidate that might not be the population's chosen representative onto a constituency. Which one are you going to choose? Let's impose a black representative in Tunbridge Wells, and a female one in Dagenham? That's not blinking democracy, that's tyranny.

Well I'm not a politics junkie so I can't be sure, but I understand that's about the PM calling an election, not being ejected through a vote of no confidence.

I don't think it's relevant at all. Crucifixion was a pretty standard form of justice at the time. Spartacus and 6,000 of his mates got totalled on the Appian way in the same way. We don't worship them. Jesus might have got bumped off by being run down by chariots - then there'd be wagon wheels everywhere. It's a martyr myth. The ultimate sacrifice. We feel guilty be association. We subordinate ourselves as recompense. It's like your mum saying 'Eat your greens, just think of all those starving ethiopians'.

I think it wasn't the Powergen that we know, it was an Italian Battery maker - but it is true. Pen Island make custom batches of branded Biros - 500+ an order: http://www.penisland.net/

I think jenny1840 probably drinks 20:20 with an umbrella.

I think you'd need it to be non-digital.

Me too :)

"It's not so much about the profession (or where they are educated) but more about the fact that party members are not representative of their constituents." There's a clear irony here. MPs do represent their constituents, as a consequence you have to go with whoever they have elected. If race or gender was a priority, then this would reflect itself in the results. It doesn't, so it's not a priority for voters. The only way you could impose a demand for a more mixed candidate profile would be by employing proportional representation and imposing this as a regulation on parties. The problem with PR is that by definition, MPs would NOT represent their constituents. In fact they wouldn't have a constituency. Geddit?

This is a pressure group for Proportional Representation. PR is a manifesto commitment of the Lib Dems that the Conservatives have come out strongly against. The Lib Dems would support this protest because it affirms the conviction behind their commitment. So um, excuse me Cllr Chapman, but aren't you supposed to be a leading local politician who would be aware of this? Or is this an example of Palin politics, where it's smart to act poorly informed?

I don't think you can equate male and female circumcision, the closest male equivalent to FGM would be the removal of the head/glans of the penis, whilst leaving the reproductive organs intact. The female equivalent to male circumcision would be the removal of the labia. I agree with Piersy that we're here as a consequence of a cosmic accident, and also realise that this isn't a practical way forward. I agree with modern evolutionary thinking in the sense that mankind isn't the ultimate objective. In fact a useful interpretation of evolution is that it optimises to collaboration: atoms to molecules, molecules to cells, cells to organs and organs to.. etc. A natural progression for humans is likewise to collaborate into family unit, tribe and society. They're ultimately efficient units where tasks and responsibilities are shared to maximum reproductive effect. This is evolutionary destiny. In order to achieve this societies need to get the best out of everyone, and they need practical social structures within which to operate. e.g. The liver and kidneys both do different but vital roles, they are equally respected, and fail or succeed in tandem. It's apparent that it would be exhausting to allow everyone to come to this conclusion independently. It's also apparent that some evolutionary retards think it's all about number one. In this respect people who pursue a self-indulgent agenda are not better than a cancer in society. In order to accommodate this we create 'myths'. It may be a bible, a talmud or Marxian manifesto. They all do the same thing. It's apparent that social throwbacks of any religious or political doctrine can over interpret the dogma in order to pursue a selfish goal. If in doing so they negate the original objective: collaboration, enlightenment and benefits for all, then they're simply a dead end on the evolutionary trail. The current best environment for 'evolution' is a liberal constitutional republic. You can't possibly get the best out of someone whose genitals you've hacked off with a sharpened seashell. Hence, yes, their approach is worse, it is retarded, and it's ultimately a dead end. Incidentally, this thread started off because of comments made about a person who took offence at the mention of the IRA. In this case I feel that taking offence on behalf of a nation for an unintended slight is counter productive, destructive, divisive and ultimately an evolutionary dead end. So I judge this as poor behaviour. A better solution would be to take it on the chin, and recognise that more work needs to be done to rehabilitate the nation.

I wouldn't get over heated about the margin expat. It's not unreasonable to expect a majority in a vote of no confidence, so really you're arguing about the difference between 51% and 55%. I don't think requesting a 'significant' majority is unreasonable in a decision as catastrophic as a vote of no confidence. It's pretty irrelevant anyhow - in the UK the defeat of any pariliamentary bill which spends money results in the resignation of the government, and these only need a majority of one vote. This is also the reason why a Lab/Lib coalition was unworkable. With a tiny majority of mutliple small parties, it only takes one loony to turn the government on its head.

"You don't even live in London I'm told" Ooooh... oooh... how could you, you... you.. rotter you. :)) LOL! You talk about me behind my back and then call me a stalker? Freaky ;-) Glad to see you're being 'fair' now. Interesting to see the issues with the Audit Commission.

I'm kind of stuck with re-runs of CSI series four on AXN. They are notable for their political commentary. ::o

Well someone mentioned races as well earlier, so I was just trying to do a catch-all. I think the electorate should be able to vote for whoever they feel best represents them. I don't think you can have people in London wagging their finger at Crewe & Nantwich telling them they've got to vote for a ginger haired person to keep the numbers up. It's also inappropriate to suggest that ginger haired people can only be adequately represented by ginger haired people.

You'll be pleased to hear that with very little effort Crapstone lived up to expectations.

A voice from the blasted heath, no less ;-)

That clause only seems to refer to 'special enforcement areas' and only seems to refer to parking more than 50cm from the edge of the road blackadder? In that sense it only seems to be referring to 'bad' parking, not illegal parking?

There you go again DJKillaQueen. Calling people 'liars' doesn't strike me as the most effective way to get your point across. It turns people off. It strikes me that there was a mismatch in the residents' perception of need, the budgets available, and the council's resources. It doesn't need anyone to be 'liars' - just being human is usually sufficient.

I'm not sure about the idea of forcing the electorate to elect certain genetic types? I think there should be a concerted effort to ensure that the electorate have their options open. If the local selection committees are forcing the electorate to only have a choice of middle aged white males then that needs addressing. The problem seems to me that these selection committees are essentially undemocratic? They skew the system?

I'm not sure what they're trying to achieve - they don't think they're going to get PR by doing this do they? I don't think anyone discusses the possible negative consequences of PR: that the link between the MP and the constituency is fractured, and that the MPs are essentially prioritised and selected by internal party machinery that is entirely divorced from the electorate. It's rather naive to assume that PR is necessarily more representative. Give me AV any day, but PR? Not so sure...

I don't know where you're coming from about the kerb and crossings sweetie. You've made that up as an argument you can win, but noone else is talking about it. We're talking about loading bays, obstructing dropped kerbs and poor parking at corners. "The fact remains that the vast majority of vehicles fined are causing no obstruction whatsoever to anyone, but simply parked along a point of a kerb that says they can't." Can you prove that? I don't think you can. As for vehicles not causing an obstruction, well that doesn't really deserve a response. As for 'crossings'... erm? What? In residential areas? LOL! I think if you lived on the north side of Nutbrook Street you'd not be able to get off the block because you couldn't cross the road for want of a 'crossing' DJKillaQueen, I think you've got so het up about winning an argument that you're not thinking straight. Parking restrictions are far from arbitrary. They're carefully considered and conconsistently applied.

A reply of substance? LOL! It seems that your aggravation with the Lib Dems is that they didn't put out election material telling people that they weren't the right people for the job? That's a little bit silly billy. As I said, your problem with the centralised services issue is not the Lib Dems, but your own Labour councillors who trot around telling everyone what a good idea it is. For the 17% figures you'd need to ask them where it came from in a grown-up manner, instead of running around squealing 'liar liar'. You appear to be lost in old fashioned politics, and I think Labour need to move on. You've tried smearing, you've tried attacking your critics, you've tried complaining that you're hard done by, you've tried bullying. None of it is impressive, and it's not working anymore.

What, and you don't think calling innocent people liars is a problem? You think I have an attitude problem?? Ha ha. You'll notice that I refrained from calling you names, and refrained from accusing you of lying. People in glasshouses DJKillaQueen, people in glass houses... If Labour councillors don't want to people to suggest they plan to centralise services, then they should probably desist from posting on public forums that they plan to centralise services.

Obstruction can be caused to pedestrians and businesses as well as other motorists. If you've got ageing or infirm people in the family you'll know how vital dropped kerbs are. It's also not just the kerb - if private motorists park across corners then so can vans and MPVs - blocking visibility especially for children. It's noticeable that an earlier poster argued that they were parked okay because they weren't 'jutting out' a tell-tale sign that they're thinking about motorists, not pedestrians. If you run a business you'll be familiar with people parking in you rloading bay and then disappearing off to Sainsbo's - hurting your own business. As for commercial vehicles, there is a process to go through to obtain permits to block the road. If they can prove it was an emergency then the ticket will be dropped - but it's not up to the warden to be judge, jury and executioner...