NJS

I think like most things in life, you can spend a bit of money for a bit of quality without going daft - using MP3 players with the standard placca headphones is pretty criminal but I think the bloke in the article who thought he wouldn't notice a difference is probably right for a lot of people and music. I now listen to music almost exclusively on the train so I guess that's halfway between sitting down to appreciate it and it just being background (as I often nod off).

I think he, Peter Lilley and Portillo have all tried to re-invent themselves from their early days. I think Redwood is just too slimy to have done it.

Arguments about idealogical position aside, I think the Libs could sell siding with Labour as a sort of demonstration of how PR works - as far as I'm aware the idea that the biggest party has to be the main partner in a coalition isn't set in stone. I think even for the Liberals theres a sense of feeling their way around a very new situation.

Unless she intends to sentence the fat cunt to the electric chair, this is in the wrong place.

I know its completely different universes but there has supposedly been Arab interest in Man Utd over the last few months - I think a good salesman (not Keith Harris) could maybe hawk us around as a cheaper option.

I suppose they have whinged in the past about transfer installments so HF could be right - it means 4 players at 3m each would be bought with cash in the same way I suppose Best was bought in January. Still hopeless though.

I hope so - I've always said that those who talk about disruption have to realise the only future the club has is without Ashley.

I think he sees this as the onl way to get his money back without a sale - of course relegation will ruin the "plan". (And aof course a much better way of getting his money back would actually be to invest).

Basically he's going to pocket all the TV money as far as I can see and try to run the daily business on match/merchandise/sponsorship money.

VAT - possibly - the Tories know indirect taxes affect the poor more so they'd be okay with that. Income tax - not the slightest fucking chance whatsoever. Petrol - probably Olympics - I pass Stratford every morning and I don't know what proportion of the cost has been spent already but it would cost a fucking fortune to abandon it now (and West Ham couldn't afford to finish the stadium). I think they'll anounce something stupid like a 25% cut in all civil service jobs.

Suicide note.

As I've said before, I was happy when we sacked the cunt so I could go back to hating the football murdering piece of shit. I also believe 100% we would have been relegated* if he'd stayed * 2007-2008 obviously.

Fantastic song by a decent band but I've taken part in better festival/gig moments.

I agree with that - especially the bit about voting unselfishly which is a core principle of mine - but as times have changed I think HF and to an extent where it was best expressed, Tony Blair had a point - there is a place for pragmatism. However Blair's mistake imo was to state that his pragmatism trumped almost any ideology - I think you need a bedrock of principles on top of which practical policies are built. I caught Brown the other day stating something simple that one of Cameron's core promises was the inheritance tax sop and that told him and should tell everyone all they need to know about Tory values - and he's dead right.

I've seen a few headlines saying even if the liberals strike a deal with labour they can't form a majority but add in the SNP and PC and I think they can. Edit: shit - 324 - would need the Green and one NI (Alliance?)

I agree but surely that fucks them as far as their argument for PR goes? They would only be selling themselves as a moderating influence on Labour rather than as an across party force.

Sadly I don't think the Prods do moderate.

"We are at war in Afghanistan and the troops are fighting for us" Just fuck right off - what the fuck has that got to do with anything you stupid piece of shit.

I honestly thought the incumbent PM gets the first chance.

Labour in 1950 (51%) iirc - and they didn't win - not a strong recommendation for the system tbf.

That's when it gets even more cat and mouse - the Tories won't try a budget with unpopular cuts that they would have done if they'd won a majority if they know theres another election soon.

I remember after 83 and 87 there was a real sense that Labour could never win a majority again and they started to discuss PR with the obvious problem that it needs the winners to actually consider it first. I think since then because they've won power they've rediscovered faith in the current system and being honest I think the last few elections at least have produced results which reflected the mood of the country (with a few niggles). This one for example shows an appetite for something new but not enough of that to produce a Tory government.

The difference between the Tories and Labour now is that what Mandelson and Brown say pretty much goes. The Tory leader however (even Thatcher found this) is much more under the control of the 1922 committee and other backroom bigwigs - it'll be they who are deciding Cameron's deal imo.

Except under PR at this election, Labour and the Lib Dems would basically have 50% of the vote = Lab-LD coalition = no Tory government. I stand corrected - still not convinced though

Which I hope makes those who voted Liberal expecting "historic change" realise what they were actually voting for - the Tories. This is why I mistrust PR as I said earlier despite it seeming fairer - I'd speculate that most people who vote Liberal share more values with those who vote Labour than Tory so they have to accept that making the Liberals the power brokers can mean a Tory government. Of course that also seems fair in the light of them getting the most votes anyway but my irrational side still thinks its wrong. In the past I could see a place for a centrist party given how far apart the other two were so "non-extremists" could be comfortable voting Liberal. However now there's been a shift to the centre from both sides I don't really see a place for the liberals other than as being there to confuse things. I think having two parties, as long as they are broad churches, isn't a bad system.