pap

Podcasts. The way forward, imo. I f**king hate commercial radio.

Apart from the Conservative Party.

Mate, you're doing it all wrong. The correct SaintsWeb response is to start flinging personal insults about the place. We'll have none of your honest humility here (note to usual suspects: this is how it's done!)

Commercial radio. Yet another evil of capitalism If TalkSport had no ads, it'd be on 24/7. It does, and has a lot - so it doesn't go on at all.

Why wouldn't it go down well, dune? I can buy the idea of a swing away from the Tories in such a constituency, but a complete collapse of support? Do you think this is because safe-seat Conservatives might be a bit racist, or is it simply the potential mismatch of an urban Asian woman representing the interests of presumably rural support? If it's the latter, that could have been easily solved. They could have moved Rifkind out to a rural constituency and given Warsi Kensington. What do you reckon?

Radio 6?

With the exception of Radio4, I don't really listen to any radio stations these days. Time was that the radio was the place to go to hear new music, etc. Completely different now with sites like Metacritic, Last FM and peers posting their musical tastes via Twitter. 90% of the spoken content I listen to comes in podcast format, which can be much more engaging because they generally pitch to a global audience interested in one thing, rather than trying to please a general audience. Will be interesting to see how radio evolves as wireless connectivity continues to ramp up. As it stands, I can drive about in the motor listening to Internet radio streamed over 3G. I can see the car stereos of the future being as connected to the net as everything else.

Ultimately shows how out-of-touch they are. As an exercise in attracting votes, Warsi is a disaster. She will cost the Tories far more votes than she ever earns them.

Yes, because the Conservatives want to be seen as an inclusive party. They clearly think that Warsi ticks a number of boxes for them. That's a reasonable position, but why they didn't just select her for a safe seat, I don't know.

Not sure they are even remotely comparable. Alan Sugar could probably win an election on the basis of name recognition alone. The monkey-hangers returned Mandelson as their MP three times in a row. Warsi has never been elected for any office. The one and only time she tried, she got a lower share of the vote than the previous Conservative who tried. All this in the midst of a national swing towards the Conservatives. She seemingly has no career to speak of before politics (ok, she started a law firm, but then I technically run an international consultancy firm ). Both Sugar and Mandelson distinguished themselves before becoming Lords. What did Warsi ever do but fail, and why is she a peer?

See post #32. An elected House of Lords will be harder to ignore when it rejects bad law. I completely take your point that the Lords will only be as good as the people it elects. If it becomes a clearing house full of yes men, may as well not have it. However, the current system is equally, wilfully abused. Just look at Baroness Warsi as an example; never elected to any office - but put in the Lords so the Conservatives could have her in Government. I'm always willing to discuss matters sensibly, Alps - but the level of respect I'm willing to dish out tends to reflect what I'm responding to.

Which is precisely why I described our current political system as an elected autocracy. Practically, and for all the reasons you mention, that's what we have. Alp's contention is that the Lords in existing form is working because it sends legislation back. I actually don't think it sends enough legislation back. Look at the massive erosion of civil liberties that happened after 9/11. The loss of habeas corpus, detention without trial or the extremely one-sided extradition treaty with the US. The Lords are accountable to no-one save the justice system. They're under no pressure to deliver, or indeed, even turn up. They get to continue being Lords unless they do something ball-breakingly stupid, such as end up in chokey - and even then - some still remain Lords. Under the current setup, the means of selection undermines the function of the house. A democratically elected second chamber is a lot harder for the whips in the Commons to ignore.

If your contention is that we've had no bad laws make the statute books because the Lords has been doing a bang-up job, you may wish to review the past thirty or so years of history. Then get back to me.

Don't really listen to it myself anymore either. Mark and Lard were still on it last time I tuned in regularly.

Ah, that was when he was referring to himself as "the saviour of Radio 1". And before he threw his toys out of the pram because he wasn't happy with his contract.

The Commons only getting 2 weeks to debate it is surely by design, Lord D. I'm sure the Lib Dems would have preferred it to be debated at the beginning of Parliament, rather than at the end of it.

I'm not really getting het-up about it, but it does strike me as profligate that we have so many Lords who can't even be bothered to turn up. Hereditary lords are also something of questionable value. If an employer were looking to fill a position, they'd be looking for the best person for the job, not the eldest son of the bloke who did it last time around. However, that problem is hardly constrained to the Lords. We use that method to pick our heads of state The Lords should matter. Our system of government is essentially an elected autocracy. Once elected, the government can do anything it wants with the knowledge that crap decisions will see them turfed out at the next poll. I see the Lords' function as curtailing the worst excesses of ideological vandalism. That's a fairly important job, so it'd be nice if the "hiring strategy" was reviewed every once in a while.

I like this, and to be fair to the Lords, they have made attempts to get 'real' people in before. How would you feel about allocating Lordships by lottery? Anyone who meets the criteria above is eligible.

I like the party list system, but those are the common criticisms of the system. On paper, it's extremely representative, but if the Party selects a load of yes men, then it could really damage the function of the Lords. You're completely correct about the constituency link in the Lords context, though.

The party list system is actually extremely democratic when it comes to apportioning votes. The only problems with it are the loss of constituency link and the way political parties use it, basically putting all their preferred candidates at the top of the list.

I've been pretty lucky. Some of the most interesting work I've done was at Ordnance Survey. The money isn't great, but the projects were unlike anything I've handled since. Worked for design agencies ( companies that build websites ) up in the North West. Always very cool to do a site and then see the external marketing for it ( billboards, TV ads, etc ). The job I have now has been the best for foreign travel opportunities though.

More quality content from our friends North of the border. http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=230825 Unsurprisingly, they think the complete opposite of us. The oldco hasn't yet been wound up, apparently. Some are hoping that we'll end up having to pay money to the oldco - not that it'll benefit the newco Rangers in any way.

I think the maximum sentence is a £2.5K fine. However, if he is found guilty, I think a good ol' "I hear you're a racist now, Terry!" in the Father Ted style might be an amusing thing to shout at him.

Prem rules are 3 players from 7 potential substitutes, I believe.

To Whitey G (hope you don't mind me using the 'urban' variation of your moniker!). Get well soon mate. Need you in fine form for the upcoming left vs right contests, m'good man. Seriously - best wishes.