Huguenot

Agreed MM, the one thing we don't need is a hung parliament. That's what seems to be driving this. Other metrics are rising - the emergence from recession was underestimated for example. Labour have undoubtedly lost the mandate to govern, mostly through incompetence. The tragedy is that the Conservatives are not doing nearly enough to fill the gap. More than anything the elctorate seems to be unsure whether the Tories are being disingenuous about their motives and intentions.

In defence of silverfox, there were a series of postings on multiple threads on Saturday morning which looked very much like they had been made up. They've now been removed, but they may have caused the old devil to be a little suspicious. PS Not removed by me - I have absolutely no relationship with our moderate moderators.

Mid-life crisis? ;-) I guess the first question to answer is what is worthwhile. I don't think that's easy. I've tended to find that it reduces to 'am I happy?'.

Am absolutely with Louisiana on this one. I really hope the campaign generates a good profile. Also agree with Declan that tomchance is naughty naughty on the Green party. Besides the only quality Green party candidate was legaleagle.

LOL! The price has more than tripled, the value has dropped by two thirds. ;-)

They had a fair say, at the ballot box. Like every other group of ten people that read Karl Marx in their back garden. Having failed to gain popular support, they're now having a crack through innuendo and baseless accusation. Post election the council is not a political body. It has an obligation uphold manifesto pledges, and it makes sense to acquire relevant knowledge from interested parties, but it has absolutely no obligation to 'consult' on anything. And let's be honest about 'consult' here, because from PROS perspective it's nothing to do with knowledge acquisition, and everything to do with a lunatic fringe dictating activity. Councils aren't some kind of therapy outfit. They are, and should be, a business. They should deliver best value services to taxpayers according to taxpayer demand. Taxpayer demand is identified at the ballot box, crazy PROS posturing isn't even remotely close to it. What PROS want to do is to politicise council activity to fund their own convictions about self-worth, and that's outrageous.

Hurrah! What a splendid point Rifkind makes, and how gracefully he does it.

;-) Only having a bit of fun. The Bishop was at the end of my road, and I would have gone to it more often if it hadn't been run so well it was too popular! PS Never The Village.

Aaaargh! I was about to lay into Alan Dale for being a notorious bullshitter. Wind. Sails. Taken. Let's turn it into 'safe haven' for a tyrannical amoral organisation where I can hand over responsibility for my actions to an odious bloated geriatric narcissus*. *edited to note that the order of insulting adjectives is surprisingly important. I struggled with this one for a while.

bil, mate, I think you're bs as well. This post gets reported, and if it's still here in twelve hours, habeas corpus.

With the nicest intentions, there's nothing about this account that rings true. "Screaming', 'Scared', and chasing you down the street are all 'fight or flee' responses that require considerably more incentive than a young sprog touching a flower. Frankly luv, you ain't telling it like it is.

removed for being too personal - The Administrator

Two things I should never be consulted upon are fashion and popular music. "The Village", however, is so naff it makes me want a poo. If I still lived locally it would be so naff it would actually make me want to move away. In fact, if it's called the Village it should be burnt to the ground. I genuinely don't believe that Scott is so stupid that he'd call it the Village. It's a joke isn't it. See, no question mark.

I really don't get what this obsession with consultation is. The council members were elected to talk on our behalf. Why have a dog and bark yourself? pros kind of supports all my convictions that the noisiest people have absolutely no majority support and no belief in the democratic process. "louisiana, are any of your/other croydon comments available to see online anywhere?". Do you know what? It doesn't blinking matter if she does. Get yourself elected, or get lost. The honest truth is, that despite your blurb, you and your gang are tyrants. The worst.

I don't know which China you went to Vince, but it wasn't the same one I lived in for two years. :D It's a digression. The really interesting thing about those figures is how low they are compared with the media coverage of the Lisbon treaty, and Cameron reneging on the commitment to a referendum. To read the press you'd be forgiven for thinking that we were on the threshold of armed insurrection. In fact it transpires that actually 90% of the population is pretty happy with the Europe set-up.

Hmmm, the earliest online reference I can find is 2003 from a chap who had the temerity to use it to describe his own aphorisms. Pride before a fall eh? Since this fair forum started only October 06 it seems that claim too just eludes me. I just made up a word, 'spunt', but some other blighter's already copyrighted that too. Cockbonnet? No, that's gone too...

That's the problem in countries with a large muslim population. A good bacon sandwich is hard to come by.

Well I hardly claimed ownership. I've read back on a few of my other posts and recognise in hindsight that the majority of my words have been used by other people, damn. :( I thought it was a Snorkism, no?

More than 10,000 companies 'failed' in the UK last year. I'd hardly call that interventionist. There's nothing capitalist about allowing speculators to destroy your national economy by trashing banks. China spent a whopping $585bn on 'stimulus' last year, a figure that dwarfs the UK's $30bn. The Chinese government essentially 'owns' every company in China over a given size through the appointment of party members to senior roles. They're in no danger of letting them 'fail' unless it suits them.

I think the question is posed the wrong way round. There's only one upside to a common currency, and that's free trade. The downsides of a common currency are extensive, as fiscal policy is such an important lever for controlling the state - everything from economic growth to employment and commercial competitiveness. So those countries that have pooled their currencies have done so because they think that the benefits of a trade boost outstrip the benefits of domestic control. It's not becausem they're commies, it because they're capitalists. There's no way you'd want to hand over that power to an international institution if you didn't have political convergence. Look at Greece now, the old way of dealing with their excessive labour costs in government would simply be to devalue the drachma, game over and everyone goes to bed happy.

It would be ugly though wouldn't it?

If God were omniprescient, that would mean that human activity is involuntary, thus negating concepts of good or evil and any foundation for faith. I trust your appearance on the forum represents no similar threat! Although I think this post may have been entirely predictable, as was that comment etc.

Indeed it could be, best solution may well be to smack him about a bit?

I think Easties is talking about a music shop from the Nick Hornby mould. A romantic anachronism. They were only profitable in 1975 ;-)

I share with Quids the concern about the party line approach to communication, but disagree with the perceived outcome. I suspected Barber's original intention with his local councillor thread was to gain electoral advantage by emulating Barry Jones. In spite of that the thread emaulated Barry's contribution that regardless of intent it becaome a genuine public service. Apart from the odd snooty comment, Barber steered clear of party political comment and mellowed to the extent that he became (almost) one of the community. The two Labour apparatchiks also started with the party line, but quickly found themselves undone and have likewise altered their approach. The most poor taste maneuver was to attempt to hijack the local councillor thread, and with predictable results. They were howled down and have pulled away. It ironically gave them a very poor reputation as being spiteful and petty, which wasn't going to help their chances of being elected. So in both cases the outcome was that engagement with the forum modified their activity, and consequently made them both more accountable and more representative. All power to that! ... and I don't think they're a business either. I think they provide public services as the most 'ED issue' possible.