pap

I think the original link was wrong. Fixed now, I believe.

A lesson worth remembering. Governments are not the people. http://www.israelovesiran.com/

Oooh dear. A heady brew of Joanna Lumley, local ignorance and the interjection of a Tory MP has caused a small storm, prompting the liberals at Huffington Post UK to voice their indignation. Basically, some people in Aldershot are upset because former servicemen, Gurkhas to be exact, are sitting on their park benches. Apparently, many residents are considering fleeing the town because of the Nepalese influx. Personally, I view this as the result of poor planning from both Governments (last one and this one). I mean, how hard can it be to set-up a decent support network, particularly in an army town like Aldershot?

The Conservative Party was around £28M in debt before the General Election, so all that most of these donations have achieved is to chip away at that sum. Quite amusing really - the party in charge of the country's finances was seemingly unable to look after its own. Gotta wonder why, really. Lack of support/belief from party members? However, I'm definitely with you on the probable reasons for the turbo turnaround, saintbletch. I do not think that we have heard the end of this yet, and if it transpires that Cameron hasn't been fully forthcoming on this issue, and we find out quickly, there's a good chance that such omission will finish his ailing political fortunes. As dronskisaint points out - this is something that the Conservatives have pinned their mast to. Such claims of transparency are turning out to have the credibility you would assign to a bear with a history of dirty protest that is promising he'll never take a crap in the woods again.

Well, this story has certainly moved on. Only yesterday, the likes of Francis Maude were insisting that Downing Street is a private residence, and that no disclosure of the identities of dinnering donors was necessary. Cameron performed a massive u-turn on this decision by publishing a list of Tory Party donors who have had dinner at Downing Street or Chequers. ( Cash for access - Cameron's Dinners for Donors revealed ). I would expect to hear more on this as the donors' full interests come to light.

The only equitable way to do this would be as a share of the national public vote. Measuring by seats under the current electoral system would just allow present parties to dominate the funding without having the popular mandate to do so.

Anfield, preferably before King Kenny is deposed.

Don't look at it as a "bonus fixture". Rochdale was our last "spare game", and we were crap.

Which we have probably had for a very long time now, unfortunately. If I had to provide an example of this, I'd say look no further than our membership of the EU. Whether you agree or disagree with membership, no-one can deny that it is an issue which divides the country, yet it is not up for debate. Every time it has come up, the politicians have managed to slime their way out of it with astonishing literalism ( Lib Dems + Tories - "it's a treaty - not a constitution" ) or vague portents of unspecified doom if we left at this time ( Conservative ministers who got votes for Brussels-bashing and blamed the financial crisis for abandoning their convictions). The EU is the prime example of how special interests affect our democracy. Business leaders love it, and why wouldn't they? Access to a labour market of 500m, free movement of goods, etc. However, it must be an absolute nightmare for anyone trying to provision public services. I'm fairly sure that if the issue went to a referendum this year, we'd be on the way out soon after. In my mind, a democracy is only as good as the opportunity for renewal it provides. Sure, we get to elect a new government every five years if we want, but each election seems to be nothing but drum-beating for burning public problems, while each Parliament unfailingly keeps the big questions off the table. It is, in short, a f**king farce.

There are a number of problems with state funding. First, how do you stop any old Tom, **** or Harry from starting a political party and claiming cash for it? Second (and assuming that someone has already piped in with the "ah, you give parties money based on their popularity" ), wouldn't any scheme based on vote share simply serve to perpetuate the current set of political parties? What about fringe parties? Should we be giving money to the likes of the BNP so that they can broadcast their message? State funding comes with its own problems.

I like the offer of "regional heat" ( 2nd para )

Generally, the trick is to take a photo before, then take another one afterward. /ducks

I used to work on a web-site which sells turf direct to consumers. http://www.onlineturf.co.uk/ Good boys - they'll see you right on cheap turf. Think the site also contains vids, etc, showing you how to sort it all out. They also sell pretty much anything else you might need for a garden.

Well, as buctootim points out - some people care, including myself. Sure, I might not have a quarter million to give to a political party, but does that mean that my concerns are any less valid than someone who has? It isn't hard to make the link between "cash for access" and "cash for policy", which many people are - and quite rightly in my opinion. What other reason would most of these people have for meeting a Prime Minister? To say hello? To enquire after the missus and kids? Then there is the issue of paying money to a party to get preferential treatment from a government. My business interests, status as a tax payer, and length of working life mean that I've probably paid close to or more than a quarter million into the tax system, the vast majority in the past six years. That money has gone to the Government, not a political party. I've never met any PM, so I do wonder why it is right that someone else can pay the same amount of money to a political party and get access to the PM and Chancellor. You seem to have forgotten what the government is there for. They work for us, remember - not the interests of anyone who happens to have a spare £250K.

So would you like to revise your original statement to:- "like with everything else that doesn't cost anyone any money...it will all be forgotten next week and no one will care" Don't really agree that this doesn't cost any money either. The PM gets paid a decent whack to run the country. It'd be nice if he spent his time doing that, rather than meeting Tory party donors. Surely every time he spends meeting these people and accommodating their opinions takes time away from the stated mission of trying to save the country's finances.

Well, sorta. They probably should have looked at turnout figures before implementing a policy that was effectively "pay £xxx pounds to vote!". A lot of people disappeared off the electoral register during that time.

I love trousers' brand of political parody! Whether you agree or disagree, it's always blessed with brevity and frequently features proper LOL moments. No disrespect intended trousers. Seriously. I think that, as a bare minimum, would be acceptable. And referring to trousers' question, as far back as possible. I'd like to think that one of the benefits of living in a literate civilised society is that we citizens get to know what the feck goes/went on with our politicians.

Like the Poll Tax, then?

It's a murky area. Just listening to the Today Programme in the car on way back from school run. Personally, I don't agree with cash for access at all - irrespective of which political party is filling its coffers. It's especially bad when it happens when a party is in power or looks like they are going to sweep to power, because donors are giving money to a party to get access to a government. Call me cynical, but I wouldn't expect someone to throw down a quarter mil without expecting something in return. If we hold that to be true, it puts us in a position where branches of government policy are effectively up for sale to serve special interests. Doesn't matter which party is doing it. Happens to be the Conservatives right now.

How would you spend £250,000? That sort of sum could net you a decent family home in most parts of the country. However, according to former party treasurer Peter Cruddas, such a sum guarantees you "premier league" access to David Cameron and George Osborne. The revelations, uncovered when undercover reporters posed as cash-rich lobbyists from Liechenstein (an ineligible source for party donations), have created a lot of waves over the weekend. The aforementioned Cruddas, at the centre of the storm, has already resigned from his post. The opposition have now asked for an independent enquiry to determine the extent of the cash for access problem within the current Government. Not really that surprising, imo. Governments of all colours tend to be especially susceptible to sterling-backed specific interest. However, it is a little surprising that Cruddas felt comfortable doing this with the feet only just under the table, and the political timing is terrible for the Conservatives, another piece of bad news rising up in the aftermath of last weeks' budget. David Cameron faces rising pressure over Cruddas' cash-for-access-boast

Getting this stuff out of the ground requires a process called 'fracking', which is nice because they get to use a word from Battlestar Galactica, but not so cool when the water is contaminated with gas, or indeed, taps turn into fireballs when you turn them on!

Looking forward to this, and hoping that the team treats it as "must win". No reason for us not to, either. Blackpool weren't impressive defensively this week. I'll be up at this one.

Similar sentiments have been expressed all over the press this week, especially as League Cup aside, Hodgson was a statistically better manager than Dalglish has turned out to be. Really isn't that hard to work out. He has been given the time due to the fans fond memories of his former exploits. Interestingly, this week's Football Weekly podcast touches on the subject, illustrating that the level of support for Kenny in the younger generation, those with no effective remembrance of how Dalglish made his name, is much less staunch than it is for those fans who do. Personally, I think he has been a disaster for Liverpool. Yes, he has won the League Cup, but that went to penalties. Could easily have been a different result on a different day. Doubt we'd be discussing Dalglish as the current manager if it had gone the other way.

Indeed, the only extra revenue will be the taxation on the new minimum price. Nothing in the grand scheme of things, particularly as most people are paying more than that per unit anyway. It has been suggested (by the Labour Party) that the Home Secretary has been sent in to make noise about this to divert attention from a badly-received budget. If there is anything going on beyond face value here, I'd probably say that this was it.

Well, I can't say that it would affect me too much. Isn't this just targeted at super "get you p*ssed quick" chemical slurry like really strong cider? That said though, this won't solve the problem of binge drinking. I happen to believe that it's a consequence of our relatively reserved culture. Drinking happens to be a perfect form of escapism for those who spend most of their time bottling their feelings up. Stiff upper lip leads to a stiff drink, in short