pap

Let me pull you up on a few points. 1) Of course they're meant to represent constituents' interests. That is their defined function. That is exactly what they are supposed to do. 2) Typically, they do not use their intellect to determine the best things for their constituents. It's normally spent on working out how they can remain selected by their party, which is not even the same thing. 3) Most manifestos are not worth the paper they're written on. Opposition parties that spend years moaning about the current government's policies normally do feck all to reverse it, normally because the status quo is quite convenient. Also, manifestos are devised at a fixed point in time. Did any of us think that Labour would get involved in the oil wars of the 2000's? Democracy, as practiced now, is little more than the illusion of choice. I'm the head of a four person family, and it is troublesome enough to reconcile all the conflicting wishes of that family. It's absolutely outrageous to suggest that an MP can represent the views of 65K people, just as it is completely barmy to suggest that one PM can reconcile the wishes of 65million. When it comes down to it, politicians are transient middlemen. They shape the debate, decide what is or what is not on the table, and mostly, they're wrong. Frankly, it's disappointing to see so many people see politics through the prism of these people, especially since they are so far removed from day-to-day reality.

And even on the off-chance that you get your man/woman in, they still won't represent you. They'll either be in the top echelons of government, a back-bench rebel with an opinion that doesn't count, a whipped-to-feck junior MP who'll do whatever he/she is told, or a refusenik member of the opposition. Representative democracy is a term which has no meaning. They don't, and actually can't represent you, and it isn't democracy.

I totally agree. A few posters have said that they just want parity with Match of the Day. I don't actually mind Steve Claridge or even Manish. It's just all the gimmicky bolox they do that annoys me.

Very good post, Crazy Diamond. Nice to get an insight into the process. Surely they're missing a trick though. I can understand why this might have been used in the past, but we live in an age of high-speed internet. If the Smiths across the road are able to download high definition horse porn in less than an hour, surely there are more efficient ways to get video footage to a central location.

The Football League Show, for all its faults, is far far better than the shyte that ITV were able to conjure when they were doing the Championship. That said, why is it on after Match of the Day? A better solution would be to give each division in the league 45 minutes/1 hr on another channel, and have the Premiership as the main event. That's the way it works in almost every other field of entertainment. You have the lower rated boxers fighting first on a boxing night and a support act before a big gig. Why are the Beeb showing the Football League ( not a main event ) after the Prem ( which let's be honest, is the real deal )? And don't give me any bolox about production time. I lived in Ireland for 3 years. They put the Premiership on the telly in the early evening.

Hmm.

I have to ask. Are you surprised? If my experience on this forum has taught me anything, it's that the only thing that unites the various vagabonds who post here is a fondness for a certain football team. Do they all lean to one political side or another? No. Do they believe the same things? No. Whilst I personally abhor racism in any form, it would be unrealistic for me to expect people to agree with the same things I do just because they follow the same team. Challenge it if you're brave enough, live with it if you're not, but don't expect people to hold comparable social views just because they happen to support the same team as you do.

Good lad, SuperMikey. Some absolutely tremendous performances in that show. Very difficult to pick a favourite character when so many are portrayed so well.

Stick with BSG. Really good series. If you plant your head in the real world time that it started, you'll get more out of it. Despite being a sci-fi show, the things that happen have incredibly strong parallels with things that were going on in real life at the time. As usual, you have to watch sci-fi or comedy to get close to the heart of an issue.

I watched this too. While they've obviously lashed a lot of money into it, and the general premise is exciting enough on the surface, they really need to sort some of their writing out. Example? That bit where all the teenagers are trapped in an RV, surrounded by killer dinos, cognescant that help is on the way. So one of them decides that instead of just waiting, she's going to run out of the armoured vehicle and make her way five miles back to the camp, in the midst of a ****load of nocturnal dinosaurs ( including the ones surrounding the RV). Bolox.

Exactly. I believe he loves Southampton FC. The fans loved him when he was on form, and in retrospect, his time here was the best period of his career to date. Say what you like about Beatt's fitness, but to suggest that he only has a professional relationship with the club and its fans is way wide of the mark.

There's a danger in focusing on the man here, and not what he has to say. I think a lot of the things he said, such as rewarding responsibility, made sense. The problem is that the messenger, and by implication, the messenger's buddies, dilute the message. My local MP is Luciana Berger. She is in her mid twenties, and prior to 2010, don't think she'd ever set foot in Liverpool in her life. She's from a highly privileged background, and represents a pretty deprived area of the country. No harm to her, but she's the personification of what is wrong with the Labour Party at the moment. They parachuted her in, relying on the morons who'll vote for a ham sandwich if it was wearing a Labour rosette. I'd like to see half the Commons picked by lottery. At least that way, there's a guarantee that some of our politicians come from the real world, and have real experience. Might even stop some of the more stupid decisions from going through.

I do love the firm I work for. Should do really - it's my own. That said, there have been other companies that I've really enjoyed working for, and have gone back and done further work for them. So in answer to your question, of course it's possible to love working for a particular set of people. If a company is doing the right things, looks after their staff in the right way, shows the proper appreciation and has the right vision, it's difficult not to get caught up with that.

Connolly isn't exactly a spring chicken either. Don't think Beatts can be excluded on age alone. You need two things in any great employee. First, a degree of competence. Second, they have to care about what they're doing. Haven't asked him myself, but I get the distinct impression that Beatts loves the club. So the only real question mark is whether he's going to be competent enough in the Championship. Despite the "no thanks" crowd voicing their opinions on another BT thread, the truth is that very few people know whether Beatts can still cut it. Ultimately, if Nige says he's good enough then that's good enough for me. Little bit disappointing to see so little respect for a former striker who bagged a lot of goals for us, and looks like he has passion for the club.

So, taking your point to the nth level, why haven't the Bank of England just created all the money they owe and paid all of our debts?

There's more and more evidence surfacing that this guy is not a hoax. I'm not at all surprised by the content of his comments. I'm surprised that they were aired on the Beeb, and like their presenters, was taken aback by his candour. I find the misery that people went through in the Great Depression baffling, a triumph of greed over common decency and compassion. Millions of people suddenly destitute, and for what? Because they didn't have money. The Earth had the same amount of resources, give or take a few months consumption, yet poverty swept through nations. @aintforever - best case is that governments will continue to pay back/borrow more, leaving us and future generations to pay for it. Worst case, it'll end up leading to war, somewhere, possibly everywhere. The extreme poverty of the Weimar Republic helped to foment the conditions for the Nazi state to emerge. Either way, there are some unpleasant times ahead. Personally, I think the whole system is a f*cking disgrace. Jobs are going to go, people are going to lose their houses and kids are going to have to experience all the fallout of economic hardship. And why? Because some numbers on a computer system have a lot of zeroes and a negative sign at the front? Money used to be tied to something. Now it's just printed into existence, not worth anything save what we ascribe it. You can't eat it, you can't live in it. No-one actually needs money. They just need the things that they can get with it. On its own, money is completely inert, nothing more than decorated paper. So I have to ask, why are we going through the ringer just so we can pay back artificial numbers to international bankers? Let's be honest, they need it a lot less than the rest of us. When it comes down to it, our collective assets amount to a spinning ball of rock. There have got to be better ways of sharing that rock than this fecking shambles.

Blimey. I did not realise that had changed. Depressed now.

They're not fixed terms though. I thought the PM could call an election whenever, as long as it happened before 5 years.

Robert Peston reckons that the guy is legit, although even if he wasn't, Peston also says he hears the same things from traders who don't happen to resemble Jude Finisterra.

Forbes wondered the same thing. Trader or prankster? - We called Alessio Rastani and asked It'll come out in the wash.

"The governments do not rule the world. Goldman Sachs rules the world". Nice. Probably true.

First of all, congratulations on being the first poster to actually post an on-topic response. As to your concerns, I think the only way that such proposals would work would involve building a lot of new decent houses and applying the new allocation rules to the new builds. Let's be honest, many of our social housing estates are not in a great state at the moment. I'm not sure how appealing they'd be to the sort of people that this policy is aimed at.

Feck me, if we're going to do Groundhog Day, can I at least get to boink Andi McDowell*? *From then, not now** **Ok, probably now too.

10. Stop saying please and thank-you.

Let's be honest. An opposition leader is going to have limited influence on Government policy irrespective of the level of union involvement. And off-topic on the first post, TDD. That's some swagger there, kid