Happy Face

I wonder if they ran it past Hughton first.

Like I said last year....

Rethinking it I'm actually quite grateful they've released this statement. There was a bit of a growing voice that Ashley was slowly but surely winning the fans over. Perfect reminder what an utter twunt the bloke is.

They're defending it. Unbelievable. "They're" are you taking the piss? About 3 posters (ie a very small minority) have said "you might be misreading it". But there are people on N-O agreeing with posts that say.... Even CT isn't daft enough to defend it. The majority on N-O do agree it's a crock of shit though.

They're defending it. Unbelievable.

That shit won't fly on the BBC will it?

http://www.shure.co.uk/products/earphones/se420 £300 normally £126 @ Advanced MP3 players.... http://www.advancedmp3players.co.uk/shop/p...ts_id=2322{1}91 They also sell on Amazon.... http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000UZ0...ref=oss_product BARGAIN! Jump on it while you can.

Don't you have one for Wigan? One what? A hilarious nickname Why Gaan?

I thought this was the official thread.

I've been loving the world cup ads. Especially this one... Where it cuts out for sir Berb

I think that's the way the vast majority feel when the parties discuss economic policy. I don't expect voters to read up on economic theory to see who they agree with either, but if people don't know what to think one way or the other, it shouldn't be an issue you use to advocate for one party over another. I'd have thought the most important issue for you would be the amount of money the Tories are going to drain out of the North East specifically. That should have you howling because what few customers you still have going out of a weekend in Shields are going to be relying on cans from Asda more and more under the Tories....and you'll be on here rather than doing jobs on a Saturday night even more than currently.

That was Mike Ashley's rationale about NUFC plc the January before we got relegated. You're wrong about both. Leaving nufc to one side, please enlighten me as to how we save enough money to get out of this hideous debt without cuts. You can spend money to make money my good man. Speculate to accumulate. He who dares........wins! Once you've recovered, then you can reduce spending. I might believe Tory Boys cuts are the only sensible option.....if he'd actually outlined more than a third of the cuts that required. Much the same as the other parties on that score btw. Can only assume the good man at the Ashley has once again laid free his wares We are currently borrowing billions because we have no money to run the country. We have used up our credit at Lloyds, provident and laygate prawnbrokers and are only left with jimmy the knife loans Inc but sure, let's give it a go A recession undermines business incentive to engage in investment. With falling incomes and demand for products, the desired demand for factories and equipment (not to mention housing) will fall. This encourages the recession to continue. Keynes advocated what has been called countercyclical fiscal policies, that is policies which acted against the tide of the business cycle: deficit spending when a nation's economy suffers from recession or when recovery is long-delayed and unemployment is persistently high—and the suppression of inflation in boom times by either increasing taxes or cutting back on government outlays. He argued that governments should solve problems in the short run rather than waiting for market forces to do it in the long run, because "in the long run, we are all dead." Read more here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

That was Mike Ashley's rationale about NUFC plc the January before we got relegated. You're wrong about both. Leaving nufc to one side, please enlighten me as to how we save enough money to get out of this hideous debt without cuts. You can spend money to make money my good man. Speculate to accumulate. He who dares........wins! Once you've recovered, then you can reduce spending. I might believe Tory Boys cuts are the only sensible option.....if he'd actually outlined more than a third of the cuts that required. Much the same as the other parties on that score btw.

That was Mike Ashley's rationale about NUFC plc the January before we got relegated. You're wrong about both.

To be accurate it’s 36% of the half the electorate, which is about 18% of the country. It's hardly the ringing endorsement Cameron is making it out to be. After 15 years of any government and an election in the midst of a global financial meltdown the opposition would normally stroll to a majority. This result really is a bit of an embarrassment for the Conservatives. If that's the case it's a monstrous kick in the nads for Labour Not really. After fifteen years of the last Tory government the electorate deserted them in huge numbers and Blair came to power with a 100 plus majority. Either Labour have done a far better job than the last tory government, or Cameron has provided an unpalatable alternative. Labour under Blair offered fundamental change in their approach to politics having learned the lesson of '92 when they failed worse than the Tories have here. New Labour was a marketing push that sold the notion of a more centrist Labour option that was far more palatable to floating voters. Cameron has done nowt in this election but say "what's your fucking alternative?" and sit back with a snide face on assuming people would flock from Labour. They are no different to what they were in the 80s/90s so why would the electorate choose to go back to that? Depends how you look at it though, Cameron's been a disgrace if the most important thing is to take power, but if sticking to party principals is more important then he might have JUST stolen it and managed to do so. The base will love him for that wheras the Labour socialists were outraged with Blair.

The Tories have lost 4 councils, Lib Dems lost one and Labour have gained those 5.

And if it does? I can see it this time and iirc it almost happened twice in a row in the 70s. I'm just repeating what he said. I'm woefully uninformed on electoral systems. But the way I see it, if you have 650 seats and 30m voters then PR says if you can muster 50,000 votes you become an MP....which means UKIP would have 17 MPs and the BNP would have 10...you'd also get a growth of religiously motivated parties, which I'm not sure I favour. I prefer the system of voting for two or three parties in order of preference. Am i way off? The thing is though, why should people you don't happen to agree with / don't conform to the centrist parties be disenfranchised? It's a toughie. The commons is like a school playground with two (three at a push) parties arguing the toss as it is. I think when you have 20 parties with reprasentation, and a fifth of the MPs not affiliated to any major party, it turns into a democratic hindrance rather than an improvement. I think that's a lame argument to keep the status quo in all honesty. I think they'd work together because they'd have to, like in other European countries. Obviously they'd have to get on with it as best they could. But if no party has a commons majority that allows them to push through a program of change it's not lame to point out parliament will become more stagnant. Will it though? The bills will be passed but they'll have been influenced by more than one party. No bad thing imo. Better than a situation where you have one party with a big majority (despite getting less than 40% of the popular vote) being unaccountable. In the case of Labour under Blair you could probably argue it wasn't so much one party, or even a cabinet, but a small number of people running the country as a sort of absolute monarchy / dictatorship, in effect. Perhaps that does work better but why bother with democracy at all in that case? Anyway, just my view. I've always supported the idea of PR because it's fair imo. It's still democratic because the majority of people have chosen who's running things. That's not dictatorial. I'm not supporting the current situation either mind. Slightly inflamatory language on my part but I think the point still stands. When was the last time the majority of people voted for a government though? Certainly not in the example I gave. Bad choice of words from me too. I meant the largest minority. If second choices were introduced, majorities would be created for those parties with enough votes/seats to form a government.

And if it does? I can see it this time and iirc it almost happened twice in a row in the 70s. I'm just repeating what he said. I'm woefully uninformed on electoral systems. But the way I see it, if you have 650 seats and 30m voters then PR says if you can muster 50,000 votes you become an MP....which means UKIP would have 17 MPs and the BNP would have 10...you'd also get a growth of religiously motivated parties, which I'm not sure I favour. I prefer the system of voting for two or three parties in order of preference. Am i way off? The thing is though, why should people you don't happen to agree with / don't conform to the centrist parties be disenfranchised? It's a toughie. The commons is like a school playground with two (three at a push) parties arguing the toss as it is. I think when you have 20 parties with reprasentation, and a fifth of the MPs not affiliated to any major party, it turns into a democratic hindrance rather than an improvement. I think that's a lame argument to keep the status quo in all honesty. I think they'd work together because they'd have to, like in other European countries. Obviously they'd have to get on with it as best they could. But if no party has a commons majority that allows them to push through a program of change it's not lame to point out parliament will become more stagnant. Will it though? The bills will be passed but they'll have been influenced by more than one party. No bad thing imo. Better than a situation where you have one party with a big majority (despite getting less than 40% of the popular vote) being unaccountable. In the case of Labour under Blair you could probably argue it wasn't so much one party, or even a cabinet, but a small number of people running the country as a sort of absolute monarchy / dictatorship, in effect. Perhaps that does work better but why bother with democracy at all in that case? Anyway, just my view. I've always supported the idea of PR because it's fair imo. It's still democratic because the majority of people have chosen who's running things. That's not dictatorial. I'm not supporting the current situation either mind.

And if it does? I can see it this time and iirc it almost happened twice in a row in the 70s. I'm just repeating what he said. I'm woefully uninformed on electoral systems. But the way I see it, if you have 650 seats and 30m voters then PR says if you can muster 50,000 votes you become an MP....which means UKIP would have 17 MPs and the BNP would have 10...you'd also get a growth of religiously motivated parties, which I'm not sure I favour. I prefer the system of voting for two or three parties in order of preference. Am i way off? The thing is though, why should people you don't happen to agree with / don't conform to the centrist parties be disenfranchised? It's a toughie. The commons is like a school playground with two (three at a push) parties arguing the toss as it is. I think when you have 20 parties with reprasentation, and a fifth of the MPs not affiliated to any major party, it turns into a democratic hindrance rather than an improvement. I think that's a lame argument to keep the status quo in all honesty. I think they'd work together because they'd have to, like in other European countries. Obviously they'd have to get on with it as best they could. But if no party has a commons majority that allows them to push through a program of change it's not lame to point out parliament will become more stagnant.

Sounds like she's been drinking the Binge.

And if it does? I can see it this time and iirc it almost happened twice in a row in the 70s. I'm just repeating what he said. I'm woefully uninformed on electoral systems. But the way I see it, if you have 650 seats and 30m voters then PR says if you can muster 50,000 votes you become an MP....which means UKIP would have 17 MPs and the BNP would have 10...you'd also get a growth of religiously motivated parties, which I'm not sure I favour. I prefer the system of voting for two or three parties in order of preference. Am i way off? The thing is though, why should people you don't happen to agree with / don't conform to the centrist parties be disenfranchised? It's a toughie. The commons is like a school playground with two (three at a push) parties arguing the toss as it is. I think when you have 20 parties with reprasentation, and a fifth of the MPs not affiliated to any major party, it turns into a democratic hindrance rather than an improvement.

And if it does? I can see it this time and iirc it almost happened twice in a row in the 70s. I'm just repeating what he said. I'm woefully uninformed on electoral systems. But the way I see it, if you have 650 seats and 30m voters then PR says if you can muster 50,000 votes you become an MP....which means UKIP would have 17 MPs and the BNP would have 10...you'd also get a growth of religiously motivated parties, which I'm not sure I favour. I prefer the system of voting for two or three parties in order of preference. Am i way off?

If you really believe that you should support the Lib Dems. Sounds like wooly bullshit to me like, but that's not to say we couldn't develop some form of PR that works well, other countries manage it. PR has many benefits. Every vote counts so parliament actually reflects public opinion, for as long as I can remember we’ve been governed by a party the majority of the country didn’t vote for. Under FPTP the views of people who live in marginal seats carry a grossly disproportionate weight, which is wrong whichever way you look at it. PR would also protects us from obviously bad or extreme policy getting pushed through parliament, and it provides a proper mechanism for getting on with things when the national vote is split three ways like we have now. Well said. However it must have many down sides since no-one Labour or Tory have brought it in. I'll have to find a nice unbiassed source to read up on it. Election historian on the BBC just saying he's against it. Suggested you need this kind of result twice in a row to say it's failed...which has never happened. Also leads to a lot of smaller parties with more MPs causing congestion in the commons.