Huguenot

I think people may be getting the wrong end on this one! In the areas that a devolved government does have oversight, then effectively UK parliament only has oversight over what's left anyway. That means in England. In those decisions there are 533 English MPs, 40 Welsh, 59 Scottish and 19 Morther Irish. Given the huge disparity in influence, and the fact that devolution is not the same under the same terms in each country, there's no justification for the enormouse expense of running a second UK parliament. Since most of the proponents of this position are 'small government Tories' then they are either too confused to see this, or just being disingenuous with a hidden agenda. If we're running scared of those 118 'foreign' MPs, with their blue faces and scary voices, then we're not really the big strong English people we think we are. A bit weedy really. If in the other hand you're talking about complete devolution in the face of what is clearly a more globalised world where the winning countries in the resource battle are billion citizen trading blocks, then you must be daft - letting petty rivalries ruin your nation.

Quite true Magpie, but democracy means an elected government. You keep trying to make the government (or 'the state') the enemy, when really it's your neighbours. If the majority wish the beneficiaries of their tax and communal ameneties to identify themselves as deserving of that benefit, then an ID card is democratic. Currently to claim you have to produce a bank staement or an utility bill. It's ridiculous that we're handing over complete responsibility of our nation's immigration policies and welfare state to foreign owned banks and energy companies. To get a utility bill you only need to steal an existing utility bill and ring up the helpline. You call that secure? Now THAT's undemocratic. So the what do the figures say: 58% believe UK ID cards should be compulsory (YouGov/Sunday Times) 70% or more are unconcerned that ID cards threaten civil liberties (MORI/Detica, YouGove/Telegraph) 71% agree that the government can be trusted to look after the data (YouGov/Telegraph) 82% think ID cards will cut benefit fraud (YouGov/Telegraph) 80% think ID cards will tackle immigration fraud (YouGov/Telegraph) 69% are willing to pay personally to carry them (ICM/Reform) So democracy tells us that the perceived benefits of ID Cards outweigh the cost of having them, and outweigh the threat to civil liberty. I agree with the majority: if the government wanted to behave corruptly they wouldn't need an ID card to do it. The police haven't needed ID cards to imprison suspects incorrectly. If someone was going to steal vital info, we've already handed over so much data to credit card companies and Tesco points that it would be like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Sorry, you're quite right. I was just musing that being a capital didn't necessarily mean the imposition of centralised social controls through economic power.

Apparently the largest Tiger is the Siberian Tiger that grows up to 350kg. By contrast Polar Bears start at 350kg and grow to almost 700kg. Seems like a no contest. Despite have a polar sounding name, the Siberian Tiger seems to naff around in China, so the two probably don't cross paths.

See loads of places. In the US the bankrollers are California, Texas, New York and Florida in that order. DC is a tiny fraction of those. Beijing offers very little, you'd need to look at the SARs of Shanghai, Hong Kong and Shenzhen. It doesn't get away from the fact that wealth generation is usually polarised and less wealthy areas are subsidised. The subsidies are generally supported because either it's convenient or it prevents social breakdown that may impact upon prospects for further wealth generation. Myopic types often think they can keep the wealth and drop the subsidies - then they can't understand why it's all gone wrong.

Exactly my point on Schaeuble. Germany's finance minister didn't say it called into question the entire idea of the the EU and the single currency. He said that loans are conditional on good behaviour. No shock there. As for Das Bild, well where does one start with this world shaking tabloid and political commentator? They're one of the few newspapers aside from the Daily Sport to carry page 3 girls on page 1. They supported Bush throughout his term of presidency. It's name actually means 'Picture Newspaper', a reflection of the fact that it doesn't expect its buyers to be able to read. It no more reflects German national opinion than the Daily Sport.

Despite sharing the currency and taking on the economic cost of a national merger, West Germany did not reject East Germany on the grounds they were getting a free ride. I think you do Germans a disservice. Besides, Germany is wealthier per head than Brits, has a more productive workforce than Britain. They know full well that this growth was generated in no small part by the introduction of a common currency and economic convergence. They'd be unlikely to be so myopic to toss these benefits away over a short term rationalisation of the Greek economy. Germany isn't giving cash to the Greeks, it's offering loans and making them conditional on reform. A stronger Greek economy is another growing export market for German goods and services. If there was a currency to drop after losing 30% of its value in the last twelve months, it'd be the Pound not the Euro.

I'd like to see a change to Single Transferable Vote. The last candidate is eliminated in each round of counting, and their votes handed over at full value to whoever was the second favourite on their voters' cards. The rounds continue until one candidate has over 50% of the vote, and they are elected. You're most likely to get elected if you not only prove popular as a first place selection, but have also offered such a compromise that you attract a lot of second place votes also. It leads to more acceptable, centrist and meritocratic policies - first past the post rarely delivers a candidate with over 50% of the vote, meaning the winning candidate has actually been rejected (not elected) by a majority of their constituency. Whilst it doesn't eliminate hung parliaments it does create convergence on effective representation rather than ideology. This means that the dangers of a hung parliament are much less significant, and the government itself has a greater mandate to govern. It is less likely to deliver hung parliaments than proportional representation, and also ensures the population can elect a representative rather than have a party central office choose the representative for them. I believe STV incentivises quality performance, and PR does the opposite. It also eliminates the need for tactical voting, a strategy which puts a large number of people in the uncomfortable position of lying on their ballot card.

.

I didn't think the BNP had a local candidate? They really are a foul bunch.

I genuinely wanted to know if she delivered to Singapore. Confectionery here is crap, and those midget gems shots got me going.

Miss Hope, do you deliver to Singapore?

Don't panic languagelounger - this isn't an example of a rampaiging patriarchy, simply a technical solution to a pressing problem. Please please do remember that this site isn't free, it's just free to its users. Admin pays for it and his budget is no bigger than your own would be :) Sometimes he has to do the simple thing, because he doesn't have a committee of technicians and a billion dollar budget to do the perfect thing.

My advice is to find a large hat and a comfortable cloak.

I tend to agree with you MM: a hung parliament is likely to be unproductive. However, the responsibility for this doesn't lie with the voters, but with the political elite. Electoral boundaries have been persistently and cynically redrawn with the aim of supporting a two party state. Both of these parties have comprehensively failed the British people, probably because this entrenched position has proved to be no incentive for competence or quality. We now have a situation where a party (the Lib Dems) could take the highest share of the national vote, and yet be relegated to having a tenth of the seats in parliament. An absolute outrage. A coup d'etat. I believe that a hung parliament for a couple of years will create the atmosphere for comprehensive change in the political system, and a healthy long term future for the UK. No pain, no gain. Go Lib Dems, get the votes they deserve, and if the government is stolen from them I hope the citizens revolt!

I think there should be little doubt that there's a segment of the population who create a personal identity by engaging in a bigotted tribal mentality. They put the blame for their perceived misfortune at the door of people 'outside' their tribe. The easier these 'enemies of the tribe' are to identify, the better: bowler hats or skin colour are easy targets. In times gone past, Labour's talk of class war and oppression was a magnet for these people. It's easy to see how New Labour's more practical and inclusive approach to running a government, and the rejection of values based on civil conflict, have reduced their appeal to tribal yobs. I don't think these tribes have considered political views at all, I don't think they've been 'rejected' by Labour and I don't think they believe in the BNP. Like Milwall fans ('no-one likes us, we don't care') they want to feel hard done by, they want to be victims, and above all they want to have someone to hate. The sad thing is that voting BNP doesn't necessarily mean that someone is part of this unattractive tribe. Some people who vote BNP have brains that don't work properly, are easily lead, or think it'll impress their slack-jawed mates. You can only really appeal to this mob by feeding their prejudice and sharing in their hate. It's up to you if you want a national government that does this.

I can't remember the miners' strike prompting calls for Ripon and South Wales to withdraw from the pound. The Greeks, like the miners, are living on borrowed time and a myth of social immortality and self indulgence. It doesn't really challenge the currency, but then this is about probabilities not absolutes. I think its far more likely that Little Englanders will bring the nation to its knees by isolating themselves from the international community that puts bread on their table. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you...

Ridiculous award goes to Waldo. There are many things that aren't affordable, and theft/robbery isn't showing initiative and resourcefulness. Waldo, you're simply not thinking this through. Must try harder.

Ha! That site was hilarious! Their agenda stems from feelings of gross inadequacy, and their delivery comes across like a purple faced child squealing in a supermarket aisle because they can't have the pretty-coloured box.

I'm not sure it's another surveillance system is it? It's just a creative use of an existing public service. I don't think 'average speed' penalties can possibly work in an urban environment, urban speed problems are usually localised on rat-runs. Unilke some posters, I don't think that the people running this scheme are too stupid to realise this. I think they're probably testing the technology, and doing a bit of due-diligence.

Not even remotely the beginning of the end. Just a quickening of resolve. Most of Yorkshire has had government money pumped into it for decades, it didn't lead to the break up of the UK. Either way Quids, I don't understand why you're gloating? The UK doesn't have sufficient natural resources to survive, we need effective and stable free trade areas for our national health. If Eurozone fails then we all pay the price.

All good points, I just don't see an ID card as an erosion of civil liberties. Someone posted the Living International review of the best places in the world to live. The UK came a dismal 26th or something. Yet the vast majority of the countries above the UK have a national ID card. Most arguments about the ID card start with 'What if they used the ID card to...?' I think those arguments are facile: what if they used cars to drive bombs to Omagh? Do we ban cars? You're right that they could be counterfeited, however most crime is not massively organised criminal gangs, it's petty. Most immigration abuse and illegal working is petty, most identity theft is petty, the tube bombers were petty, public service abuse is petty. I'm not saying that an ID card could solve these problems single-handedly, I'm saying that it represents no price at all, and I'd expect UK citizens paying tax into a social pool to require that the beneficiarys identify themselves.

So is that squatting as a form of political protest? We used to have sit-ins at University, but we generally chose high-profile buildings like the senate, because it was more likely to have an impact than a slug infested Coventry lean-to. Or is it squatting as a form of preservation? I've seen loads of other successful conservation campaigns too. Likewsie they've generally been more successful if they've engaged the local community rather than sitting in a boarded up cess pit with five other people that don't wash. We even have a moderately successful government initiative - listed buildings. So it makes me think that those excuses are a bit tired too.

Well that's all true Ladymuck, but he does cite his issues with traffic cameras as stemming from his wasted time defending inappropriate penalties. I just felt this particular argument against traffic cams didn't stand up.

But free school meals for every child isn't a proposal to make savings is it...? In fact, because of this increase in expenditure on school meals Labour are going to have to cut back other services even more than the other parties! It's even possible to argue that free school meals for all is forcing a merger with Lambeth to free up funding. I don't believe that is a sacrifice most people are willing to make. I don't think they're helping yourself with this strategy, because it's clear that not all school children need this service at all, but you're going to give it to them anway. That's kind of the definition of waste. As for childhood obesity, I think it's somewhat totalitarian to imagine that you can tackle it by enforced dieting in our school system. Crazy stuff. I do think the government has an obligation to educate, inform and inspire our citizens - but we cannot and must not ever impose a diet through the state. If you think the threshold is too low, then lets have an honest debate about that - but there will always be borderline cases wherever you put it, and it's clear that not everyone needs it. My own politics are predominantly socialist, but with meritocratic distribution of resources and empowered workforces, not the blunt oafishness of government intervention.