david_carnell

What snorky said.

Marvellous. My girlfriend has just ordered Virgin media. Good work beardy-Branson. Oh, and to keep BBW happy, er... Pissflaps! There, I can swear too. Nothing serious or academic to see here. Oh god, what have I become? *holds head in hands*

Come on.... I said monkeys. Twice.

I went to post this earlier in response to Piers's ideas but lost my work - hopefully this is a rough approximation: I'll let you develop the idea further before I fully attack the citizen's lottery/jury service idea but it seems unworkable. It also highlights one of my biggest problems with modern politics and politicians - short term-ism. And monkeys. But first, short-termism - I propose 7-10 year fixed terms for parliament. If the longer time-frame was adopted it could perhaps be coupled with the re-election of a percentage of MPs every 2 years (say a round 20%) to keep things fresh but unlikely to alter parliamentary balance too quickly. Barely has a government been elected and they avoid upsetting the apple cart by not pursuing radical policies because the ultimate goal is re-election in four short years. How is it possible to arrive in government from opposition, understand the problems facing you, think of innovative solutions, consult fully, test them, evaluate, implement them in full, evaluate them again and alter them if necessary? Quite simply, it is not. With the government having to pander to media and public opinion polls every five minutes and announce new strategies every time a single tabloid-induced problem rears its head, arch-pragmatism becomes the order of the day rather than truly inventive ideas. Secondly, should a Minister (who for the sake of argument we shall credit with a modicum of talent and a desire to improve the nation's lot rather than their own) manage to become a Secretary of State and obtain a departmental brief, the merry-go-round that shortly occurs means that effective management of a department and effective implementation and analysis of policy is almost impossible. Once you've been appointed, you need a chance to do your job properly or why bother. The civil service end up running things and this is, essentially, undemocratic. And as a permanent body pragmatism once again becomes prominent. Cabinet positions should also come with fixed terms. A minimum of two years. Time is essential - without it we'll end up like Italy, replacing our government every twelve months, becoming entangled in a bureaucratic nightmare with creaking public services. Monkeys next. Pay peanuts and you get them. The NHS is the world's second biggest employer and yet the SoS who is meant to run it receives under ?200k pa. Ridiculous. An equivalent private sector job would pay many times that. If you want politicians to be the best people for the job rather than power-crazed psychotics (and I don't think there are many like that tbh) then it is about time we (tax payers) stumped up the cash to attract the best candidates. MPs - ?100k. Ministers ?200k. SoS ?500k. PM ?1million. And then get rid of expenses aside from a bit of stationary.

Apologies for not contributing earlier MM...a lack of a real keyboard meant trying to repsond on a touch screen would have been painful. I suppose I have to come at this from an entirely academic perspective because, unlike some, I wasn't even born when Thatcher came to power. As such I am truely one of Thatcher's children, for better and worse. I do not possess first-hand knowledge of the events that took place before and after her election (although my father was on the receiving end of some of her anti trade-union legislation) and this presents the possibility I could be more objective, but open myself to accusations of "not knowing what I'm talking about" 'coz "you weren't there". I'l take such criticisms on the chin. I wrote my dissertation on union power during the Thatcher years and I found it interesting that many leading academics ntoe that whilst union power was indeed high during the mid to late 1970s, these things go in cycles. Manufacturing and other heavy industries were already on the decline when Thatcher came in and whilst Callaghan (or any other Labour leader) may have subsidised them for longer, the traditional trade union power-base was ebbing away in the face of the growing service industries and the technological revolution. I would speculate however that the miners struggle would have been resolved much faster and with much less proverbial bloodshed. Mine closures could have been spread out over a longer time frame, communities could have been saved, relations between citizen and state would not have been irrecovably damaged. The coal industry was dying, and the strike was it's last stand. Output had been falling and the number of people employed likewise for three decades. There was little need for such horrific confrontation and for this the Thatcher government, and to a far lesser but still important extent, the NUM and Scargill, remain culpable. Other areas of this virtual history are less clear. The desire of Thatcher to create a wealth owning society, and her achievement in doing so, has forever changed the British political and social landscape. The sale of council houses and the share creation by the sell-off of nationalised industries can never be reversed. Personally, I wonder if this is a good thing? Our current housing crisis is partially created by the excess desire to own a home and the stigma attached to those who still rent, be it privately or council property. On the continent, where house prices did not undergo the boom-and-bust cycle that we have suffered twice since the 1980s, no such stigma exists with families happy to rent apartments on long term leases at low, fixed costs and with legislative protection. I think the idea that Thatcher planted and which has now firmly taken root in the nation's psyche, that owning your own home (or even house) is a "right", is a particularly unpleasant British disease that has contributed to the breakdown of community spirit - something even my arch-nemisis TLS may agree has occurred. The sale of nationalised industries has led to the erosion of workers' rights, the explotation of labour and the search for profit over-riding the idea that vital national infrastructure should be run for the benefit of "the nation" or "society" and instead replaced it with the idea that it should be run for the benefit of share holders. And it was done under the disguise of efficiency. As a social experiment with wide-reachnig ramifications I believe it to be a failure - however a full discussion of this is perhaps best left to a seperate thread. Would a Labour government have done these things? I think it unlikely. And as such Britain may be a very different place today. As a footnote, if a Labour government had been in power in the early 1980s I wonder how the internal divisions within the party would have manifested themselves? Militant Tendancy came close to destroying the party entirely and the SDP break-away led to the establishment of a third force within British politics. Would the chance to seize more power have been too irresistable for the pseudo-communists in Labour's ranks? Perhaps - and if they had sympathetic ministers in key cabinet positions what would the outcome have been. An interesting alternative history I would encourage all political bents to check out is A Very British Coup written by Chris Mullin, currently a Labour MP.

It's not quite Lordship Lane, but it is gossip.... ...the cafe in Peckham Rye have applied for both an alcohol license and a license to stay open till 11pm. Ordinarily I'd say we had enough drinking establishment but I'm thinking a few ice-cold beers on a lazy summer's eve might go down a treat. All those in favour please raise their drinking hand.

In honour of those folks planning high jinks in the City on April 1st: Rage Against the Machine - Sleep Now in the Fire

Cassius Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No matter what my opinion is of DM's post, I > wonder what david_carnell feels how people who > have created on online/forum persona should do if > they wish to make a statement or point about > something and that sentiment doesn't really fit in > with this persona. Should they desist? should > they go ahead and risk this sort of commentary? > or should they have another log-in where they are > themself and not their online persona? > > Moos - seem to have cross posted with you I suppose, yes, Cassius, they should. I don't mind people having invented personas, even if I have chosen (probably inadvisedly) to use my real name. Like I said, I even quite enjoy DulwichMum's line of satire. But don't spend months, or in DM's case, years, cultivating the "ditzy, chardonnay-sodden, upper-middle-class bored housewife" routine and then be surprised when people shout "...and what the ?$%^ would you know?!"

BBW - Is that relevant then, to either the death of Ms Goody, or this argument-on-the-side?

Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion Mick, and I've not said anywhere that they shouldn't be. What I said, and if it wasn't clear before then I'll try again, is that some people's opinions I give more weight and respect to than others. And I would encourage others to do the same. It's why I read books written by eminent academics or specialists in their fields of knowledge, rather than by Gary Bushell or Jeremy Clarkson.

Oh yes, BBW, I'm not suggesting the forum turns into the House of Commons - full of dull old men having endless serious debates. My issue, and the above argument elaborates on this, is when people (or at least their forum personas) renowned for inane comedy or just plain stupidity/rudeness attempt to sway into serious debates on rare occasions. It just grates with me that they should be given the same level of courtesy. It's why Joe Pasquale wouldn't make a good Prime Minister and Gordon Brown is shit at jokes. Although, come to think of it, so is Joe Pasquale.

Hopefully it can be an amicable disagreement because I'm afraid I disagree entirely with you. Firstly, I certainly give some posters much more credit or respect than others and without sounding simpering I'd include your good self in this category. Over a period of time they have proved themselves educated, erudite and enlightening on subjects far outside my own areas of expertise. Even if I disagree with them there is a level of respect that pervades because they have earned it and I'll listen to them more than usual. However, many other posters specialise in humorous inanity, and sadly others in rudeness and stupidity. They get short shrift because of this. And I believe that to be fair and how things are in the real world too. Don't act like a wally all the time and when you make a serious comment once-in-a-blue-moon people won't still think of you as such. And second, even on your terms, I felt DM's post to be wrong and ill-informed. I perhaps went a little OTT in my reply. But not much. Oh, but I agree with you about *Bob* - good point that man.

Mine was patronising?! Sorry you found it such Moos, but I don't think I'll be alone in finding irony in someone who cultivates a forum-personality of a shallow-alcoholic with a penchant for designer clothes and lunching, getting all hoity over the coverage given to Jade's death by some other forumites who are rather more well known for their considered, thoughtful and serious postings. My reference to "bright people" was merely using DM's own words, nothing more.

dulwichmum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have just read this entire thread and I am > horrified by what has been written. I have held > so many on here in such high esteem, I thought > that you were so incredibly bright. > > Jade had a bloody difficult start, the most > difficult. She managed to become a dental nurse. > I personally think that is a huge achievement for > someone so neglected. I have nothing but respect > for her. She lived for her children, I do not > care whether it is distasteful to you how she > earned her living. Max Clifford is a parasite. > > I just hope that she had a peaceful death and that > her sons manage to survive their childhood. > > Shame on so many of you here. It is so easy to > have high morals when you don't have any idea what > the hell you are talking about. Bollocks, quite frankly. Most of the time DM, I quite enjoy your tongue-in-cheek bon mots, but don't go and ruin it by getting all sanctimonious on us. It doesn't suit you. Stick to jokes about chablis and Eastern-European au-pairs and leave the serious stuff to the "bright" people you no longer hold in high esteem. How on earth do you know the personal circumstances of those posting? Perhaps they have had a close relative or parent die of cancer and find the unedifying spectacle of a rather unpleasant, so-called celebrity milking the mawkish emotions of vast swathes of the British public for every grubby penny her publicist can get her to be a sign of a larger social decline.

Rainbow trout can be both wild or farmed. In a restaurant, unless it says specifically, you are most likely to get brown trout as this is the cheapest and most common variant. Sea trout are much larger and not often seen outside specialist fish-mongers. I've seen some in Moxons occasionally but they're not cheap and you have to buy the whole thing, not just a fillet. So, I would imagine Hizars are serving brown trout, which is quite tasty if grilled bbq-pit style but easily dries out if cooked too long.

I can only see 18 top right but nothing in any of the others. Fun game this... do you do star-jumps in front of people in wheelchairs too? ;-)

Yes, occassionally brown too in the wrong circumstance but not very often.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > david_carnell Wrote: > > > > Seen true colours - I'm red/green colour blind > > > > All the cool people are dc. > > > > Can you detect readily because I can't always. > > I'm colour blind too, but it's only a problem in > patterns when colours are mixed up, e.g. fabrics > and the Arsenal away kit...;-) Surely dc you can > tell the difference between simple red and green > coloured objects?..it's passed on to boys from > their mothers, boys can't pass it on to their > offspring, however if she has a daughter, the > daughter isn't colour blind, instead she carries > the 'defect' gene and her sons will be colour > blind, and so it goes on...in our family my mum > has 3 sons, so we are all colour blind, but it > will die out with us as their is no daughter to > pass it on... Quite so reddevil. My red/green vision is ok in telling objects apart. Grass is green, blood is red etc but in patterns, close together or in bad light it's awful. Strawberry picking is a no no unless I want unripe fruit (and that's if I can see them to begin with) and playing snooker in a dingy hall is a bit of an adventure. And yes, my Mum is to blame. In general it doesn't really affect me that much. It limits your career choices a little though. I can't be a police officer, a pilot and most understandably, bomb disposal! "Cut the red wire, Carnell", "Errr...."

Had a nosebleed Seen true colours - I'm red/green colour blind

BigPhil... do you have restrictions on what beers you can stock or are you well and truely a "free house" i.e free of tie too? If so, could I recommend the Pilgrim Brewery run by Dave Roberts in Reigate, Surrey. He's a top bloke with a great range of beers from his award-winning micro-brewery. He's an old acquintance so I always give him a plug. His beers really are ace though. Cheers, and I'll check out the all new Prince Albert when you're up and running.

Harveys Sussex best. Mmmm.

I quite like the detached villa opposite the herne tavern. 'Twas on the market recently for some outrageous price. And like Moos a whole house in the Gardens would be lovely.

Well given how wrong I got England/France and slated borthwick who had a cracking match, I'm not sure how much attention you should pay to my ramblings. However...for what it's worth, I'm afraid to say I think Ireland will lose on Saturday. But it'll be close and they will take the championship on points difference.

Err... one large piece of humble pie please. The French, beat the English?! I think not. Look at this.... fantastic!

I'll try and answer some of your points in full shortly MamoraMan but just for fun I found a calculator that allowed me to input the votes gained in the last general election, and using a 5% threshold, calculate the number of seats gained by each party using the D'Hondt method of PR. You can see my efforts here. For those unable to open the link the results are as follows: Actual Election Labour, 9.5m votes, 356 seats Cons, 8.7m votes, 198 seats LibDems, 5.9m votes, 62 seats UKIP, 0.6m votes, 0 seats SNP, 0.4m votes, 6 seats D'Hondt method PR election results Labour 254 seats Cons 233 seats LibDems 159 seats No other parties managed to cross the 5% threshold (which is fairly standard). So the Libs and Tories are massive winners but against my own preconceptions, none of the "small" parties got any seats in a nationwide poll. Would this be fair? The answer would be to do the same on a constituency basis but making the constituencies very large and returning more than one member for each. Thus allowing a member/constituency link and ensuring that every vote matters.