NJS

I still think mixing with them is healthier than a Stevie style Apartheid - doesn't mean you have to like them of course.

Unless its changed, the manager (Colin) is a huge Leeds fan - hard little twat who takes no shit from the Mackems if they act up.

South Shields sea front

Mackem pub. Definitely - when we first started drinking there in about 81 we got a bit of grief but my mate was a minier who knew the lads who got in there so we got over it and had some good crack with them. Not exactly a theme but we migrated from there to The Westoe and then onto The County, the latter being pretty much Mackem central.

Haven't been for years but served my drinking apprenticeship there and had many happy days and nights.

Seriousness aside, I do find it amusing they banned his site for leaking the list of banned sites. Also "it looked worn" has to be up there with "he fell down the stairs".

I don't think they had much choice given the squeeze on their finances and competitive tendering legislation implemented by both Tory and Labour governments. Overall my point is that Thatcher set out to engineer a more houseowner based housing sector and I think its one of her most damaging legacies. I think this is one of the things Labour failed to "fix" during their tenure but in their defence I think she did succeed in an underlying change in attitude as I described which would have been almost impossible to go against.

Absolutely diabolical policy. Blatant bribe as she thought homeowner = Tory, assets sold for a fraction of their worth, revenues ring-fenced so drastic shortage of social housing which has led to house price inflation which has caused probably 2 major recessions ans still results in millions struggling to find somewhere decent to live. But a few thousand people made a tidy sum so of course it was good. But at the time, those in social housing jumped at the chance to own. Also, apart from first-time buyers, I don't remember too many complaining when the value of property soared under the Labour administration. I don't blame the people for taking advantage - that's human nature but it doesn't make it right. Housing value increases are one of those things that gives everyone a nice warm fuzzy feeling and what I think is the illusion of wealth (if you sell you still have to find somewhere to live) but in the big picture Housing bubbles are bad news. People stretch too much to afford mortgages even if they aren't first time buyers and it can lead to crises like the one in the US that caused the shitstorm. I'm not saying everyone should live in council houses but a mixed approach and one encompassing European rental models leads to a much more stable economy than the "buy at all costs" mentality that has arisen as a legacy of this policy.

RIP Just downloaded a full Rainbow discography a couple of weeks ago (I have all the vinyl) so that's this weeks train listening sorted (with the Sabbath albums as well obviously). Also first concert I ever went to was Sabbath with him in 1980 - great night.

Bank collapse would have caused more civil unrest and cost more than a few fat sweaty coppers claiming overtime? Everyone was covered upto £50k, there'd have been no civil unrest. Do you think they'd have all collapsed? I said in the other thread I'd have setup a national bank, which would give the government the ability to inject money into small businesses on a regional level and give mortgages out to first time buyers. The surprising thing that came out of the NR thing was just how inadequate the 50k thing would have been for thousands, if not millions of people. Also simple failure of the cash machine network would have caused chaos. They wouldn't all have collapsed at once but Lloyds and RBS would have started a domino effect. I agree with you about a national bank (funnily enough Tony Benn created one but the Bitch sold it off) but that's a policy for anytime and wouldn't have solved an immediate crisis of that size.

Bank collapse would have caused more civil unrest and cost more than a few fat sweaty coppers claiming overtime?

Absolutely diabolical policy. Blatant bribe as she thought homeowner = Tory, assets sold for a fraction of their worth, revenues ring-fenced so drastic shortage of social housing which has led to house price inflation which has caused probably 2 major recessions ans still results in millions struggling to find somewhere decent to live. But a few thousand people made a tidy sum so of course it was good.

Push - not great but mildly enjoyable - I like lasses with thick eyebrows and the lass in it (Camilla Belle) has some pair on her. In other perv related news which I can just about get away with as she's now 16, I think Dakota Fanning will be top quirky totty in a couple of years time.

There are lots of semi-arbitrary percentages used for things like takeover bids and changes to articles of association and common ones are 90%, 75% and 66% so I'd guess the Scottish one was picked on that sort of basis. The key here is not 55% but 45% - the fact that the Tories have 47% stands out even to an ultra-cynic like me as a complete cunt's trick - and as such so very Tory.

How could that possibly benefit him at all? Particualarly if in 5 years time, the Tories are again the largest party but again without a majority. Can't see the Lib Dems siding with him again if it follows your suggestion. If he has confidence in "real" undiluted Tory policies then why not? - if they work he can fight on that record on a "we don't need anyone else" platform. Of course it would be a gamble but at least he would be able to rule on "principle".

If they are so confident it will work in any case, why have they agreed to a forced position that means it has to?

Which has been the case in all the elections that have resulted in a majority government... Yes but in this brave new world of constant coalitions that everyone seems to want, the Liberals have effective given up their magic bullet - if they completely fall out with the Tories, we're still stuck with them. In fact if I was Cameron I'd wait until the day after this law is passed and sack all the liberals and tell them to fuck off and run as a "minority" government. (Edit: they can then just use the "stability/national interest" argument to try and get their bills through.

It's actually taken me till reading Renton's post to realise what they've done (feeling dull this week) - I just hadn't realised that the 47% they have on their own means only a rebellion can cause an election - what a bunch of twats.

They've postponed the Tories 1m raise until the Libs 10k tax threshold is achieved (I'd guess 2 or 3 years)

I think liberals will be torn between actually having power (or the illusion of it imo) and unease at dealing with the Tories. I was going to say it might depend whether they are old school like Hughes or new generation but there's an article by Shirley Williams (traitorous bitch) in the Guardian where she seems enthusiastic.

There was an urban myth that went around during the 80s about Yuppies crashing sports cars after picking them up from the dealers and I used to work with a lad who actually did it (though in about 97) . it was a 911 and not a roundabout but he lost control at a T junction with traffic lights and hit a lorry on the other side of the road - total write-off.

Cash, credit, works access and rail ST - though I'd add driving licence which isn't strictly necessary. A universal works access card would be hard like.

Without going all Sci-Fi geek and obviously ignoring the fuck-off big brother aspects, I've always thought one card that does everything would be incredibly useful.

I hate to go all LM regarding the source but I find the several articles in the Guardian which presume that all the civil liberty laws will be repealed to be asbolutely fucking hilarious. No governement of any hue ever repeal laws which control people.

I know it's a forlorn hope but how can UEFA sanction the country when "Beitar have never had an Arab player" - it's like the old firm 20 years ago.