Huguenot

Okay, but I just can't equate this approach: "Businesses weren't going to give men and women flexible working hours unless forced to." ...with some debate about equality. That's not to do with inequality (because it's both genders), it's self-indulgence. I don't think you can start forcing companies to fit around the pecadillos of its employees. A business is an ecnomic entity that needs practicality and efficiency. In return for their commitment the employee is rewarded. Once you start talking about 'forcing' people to fit around you, you're not very far off 'the world owes me a living'. I think that kind of attitude will do more damage to your career and reputation than working part time!

Absolutely brum, but I simply don't think you're being practical. Employers don't know you personally, and can only guess at your commitment or ability based on a couple of interviews. The practical elements in a CV thus have significant influence. The hours put into anything have a direct influence on your capacity to do it well. Football, composing, business. If all things are equal between two candidates you're going to go for the one with the hours under the belt.

Sure I wasn't saying the China's one child policy didn't work because people didn't like it. I'm saying that whatever method you use (carrot in your suggestion, stick in China) you end up with a population imbalance that threatens economic and social stability. That aside, regarding your cash bonus policy, I think the average cost of having a child currently stands at 201,809 pounds. So not having two kids gifts you almost half a million quid - better than you'd ever be able to shell out in tex cuts!

17 years old right? So probably still at school? What the hell are you buying him a car for? There's a coded message in the 3.5 grand - it says you shouldn't be buying a car for a 17 year old boy. The 3.5 grand is a contribution to the hospital bills of the kids he hits when doing wheelspins to impress the girls on the way back from class. 17 years old, buying him a car. Ridiculous.

Don't shake, that A-Z, at me.

I love stories like this, because they're all about vanity and anthropocentrism. In the biblical era it was all 'there is one God and he looks like me'. In the modern era it's all 'we control the fabric of space/time'. Both of the myths are the same at heart. They're saying it's about me me me me me me me. ;-)

I wasn't aware that Huguenot was comedy either. I guess I was being wry. My family is Huguenot. ;-) Huguenots are mainly famous for being weavers and being slaughtered by Catholics for challenging the authority of Rome. Having said that, they were a little bit snotty and uncooperative, but then which tribal groups aren't? Back on topic... Amina you have an unnerving ability to swing between issues and give them equivalence. In your post then you advised voting for Jonathan Mitchell because he's local. This is a very 'personal' reason for voting, it's all about the man. When I said 'what does he believe in?', you gave me the party line: 'Vince Cable says...' You can't have this both ways. Either make it a policy debate, or make it a personal representation debate. Besides that, I'm not sure I can be bothered to have a 'debate' between the electorate and Amina's view of Lib Dem policy. You're not up for election and probably aren't a spokesperson for Lib Dem central are you? And while I'm on the subject, proportional representation is an absolutely boll*cks idea. You've only got to think about it for five minutes to realise that (the party chooses the representatives not the electorate).

I don't think you've considered who is doing the 'work'. I don't mean jobs, I mean productivity. China had to abandon the one child policy because they hadn't thought it through. They created a country of geriatrics and self-indulgent minors, none of whom were capable of sustaining the other. That's assuming you were being sensible. Another reading of your post could be 'save the planet, exterminate people', an idea not really worthy of comment.

"Either way I have seen my career grind to a halt because I don't work full time. " This is what I can't sympathise with. Of the many elements that influence employment decisions, experience is up there at the top. If you're not working, you ain't earning it. It's not because of prejudice - you just don't have anything on your CV that says 'I can work 8-6 five days a week'. Bleat about 'potential' all you like, but in the end an employer needs to know that their staff are committed. A brilliant track record in working when it suits you doesn't provide this.

It's sad isn't it, that because we reject a national ID scheme we have to rely on commercial organisations like banks to protect law and order...

m7, i think the whole point about democracy is that minorities who want to enact change against the wishes of the majority don't get to do it!

11 dead, 14,326 robberies

"it is the Stoke Newington of south London, oozing concern. Homeopaths, feng shui consultants, therapists of every hue abound" I thought we'd chased those blighters out of town? Apart from Monica, who is very very nice of course :)

I don't think it's either practical or necessary to start something new - it'd just be chucking the baby out with the bathwater. I do think all of these issues would be resolved by Single Transferable Vote (that's where if your first choice candidate doesn't get in, your vote goes to your second choice and so on until someone get's elected). It means you can vote Lib Dem first without the consequence being that your last preference gets in as a result. You'd probably actually get a Lib Dem candidate in if everyone wasn't so scared. Much more centralist and delivery focused.

Sure thang, as I mentioned... Clearly having kids offers national benefits as well - but frankly you don't pay people to do something they'd do anyway! I kind of reckon that's common sense. The fact that people think they should get cash bonuses for it rankles my 'they reckon they're entitled to it' button. Hence 'ingrates'. Here's a bonus for breathing... Mind you, this is about a feminist orthodoxy in government, and kind of got diverted into 'do women want to work and should they when they're looking after kids'. My bad. I've seen several mums go (really) nuts when the kids get themselves into bad situations, never seen a dad do it. I think we have to accept there are gender differentials.

Chuckle - don't rise to it KK! Amina, not that I want to be petty, but can you tell me the connection between these two statements... My main objective is to [...] be represented by someone who lives in the community we live in rather than our current MP who lives in North London. and... I have grown weary of being represented by a politician who not only voted for the Iraq War and against laws to tackle climate change but also against Parliamentary transparency. I mean, come on Chicken, what's the issue: North London, 600,000 dead or the end of society as we know it? You kind of bundled them together in a way that implied they had moral equivalence, and then prioritised your North London snobbery ;-) Boo hiss. Perhaps, instead of slagging off the incumbent, Jonathan would like to give us his views on... The Economy (kind of higher up the list this) The Iraq War Climate Change Voting Systems

There's a weird crossover between government, society and family unit here. I'm not sure anyone is entitled to a free ride. Sensible advice would be not to engage in procreation unless you have an economic partnership that allows for both childcare and resource generation. It doesn't matter whether this is hetero or gay, or whether it's mum or dad that takes either role. The expectation is that mum does the childcare, based on gentic prejudice. I think there's a social obligation to mitigate for prejudice, and we employ government to legislate to endorse this. However, I don't think we should pay for childcare to allow mums back to work - because it shouldn't be mum specific. So then the real question is whether you should pay for childcare at all, and I fiercely believe that it's not the role of government to tax me so that someone else can have the joy of kids. Parents? Thieves and ingrates the lot of them. I should add that this is different to universal healthcare, education and welfare - which I see as an economic benefit and a social obligation. Clearly having kids offers national benefits as well - but frankly you don't pay people to do something they'd do anyway! Hence a 'feminist orthdoxy' in government is only well placed if it challenges prejudice, not if it starts spanking cash on some female jolly.

These arguments always get so confusing. Inequality here has been conflated with poverty, exploitation, social obligation, communism etc. I don't think financial inequality can be manageable. You can't realistically expect to reduce inequality by taking from the rich - this isn't Sherwood Forest. The idea that you could impose a 'maximum wage' is patently ridiculous. When people observe that society is disrupted by inequality because of the wage differential (rather than poverty), then the argument is just about envy. I have no truck with that, you don't solve spoilt kids by indugling them. I run my own company, it provides services for other people. I get paid for doing it by my customers. No-one gets to tell me that I don't get the money 'coz other people are envious. However, you can insist that I don't exploit my workforce. More than that, a lot of my competitors are not ethical employers, and need legislation to enforce that position. But.. you can't tell me to give my workforce 'ownership' of the company. If they want to own a company they should go an launch one, with all the risk and heartache that involves. I pay to retain quality staff and keep them motivated - sod the unions, their three year pay deals and employee uniformity, how motivational is that? They enforce rules that turn the workforce into petty ingrates. Most of my staff are on profit share (my own interpretation of Sean's proposal), but it only works because I'm not obliged to. It demonstrates my faith in their contribution. I choose whether to employ executives at earth shattering salaries, that's my choice - no-one else at all. Universal education and healthcare should not be posed as a social obligation - it's enlightened self interest. A healthy, educated workforce is the lifeblood of social contentment, all the way from Cadbury Bourneville to UK plc. In that vein, keeping your employees out of poverty is also sensible - because that limits productivity issues like health, education, ingenuity etc. A lot of the arguments on here are debating the 'obligation' element of healthcare and education. It really doesn't matter at all. It just makes sense to keep your team healthy, and ensure that they are reaching their full potential. If you don't realise that, it's well, because you're a bit daft. Likewise I'm not necessarily socially or racially prejudiced because I'm ethical, but also because there's absolutely no benefit at all! So the essential premise of this argument boils down to what kind of inequality one is referring to....

I can't help myself, but how about some Tory pledges...

Agreed Quids. MM the irony is you've just done exactly what it is that everyone has said they're fed up with the conservatives about: your point 4 is 'vote Tory because Labour is crap'. There is no vision or strategy. Regardless of this clearly negative campaigning, it's simply disingenuous. From the ERM to the destruction of our schools and hospitals, the Tories don't have a great record in government either. Tories have a well earned reputation for an unholy marriage of greed, selfishness, and jobs for the toff boys. Their only response is to point at the opposition and say 'they're rubbish too'. Well whoopie-do. Thanks for nothing ;-)

This is an absolute beaut.

Loz with all due respect, if comparing me with a television character who had a reputation for being an odious self-centered liar was only intended to claim we had similar hairstyles then I give up on you. ;-) If by saying that changing speed limits looked like a revenue raiser you actually meant that it clearly wasn't, then, really... I'm afraid the only name-caller here has been you, and it's only accelerating. I love this idea of 'the likes of you'. What is my 'likes'? As I said, have a great day. :)

There's two different points being made here. I may be mistaken, but I think Louisiana was saying that you should care about civil liberties whatever party you support. The Guardian duo said that the leading political figures don't care about civil liberties no matter what party they support. Hence civil liberties isn't currently a party political issue. What the Lib Dems are saying is that it's part of their manifesto so it is party political. What I'm saying is that either way, the Lib Dems commitments on civil liberties seem to be unclear, ill thought out and out of context.

Ah, so in fact you're calling me a liar? That's okay then :D Have a great day Loz!

An interesting spatial threat to disallowance then? There's an almost Tetris-esque nightmare raised there, which probably shouldn't cause so much anxiety. I think the most likely effect of a disallowance is that Camberwell just wouldn't. The whole question of architecture and hospitals would be void also, by calculation.