pap

He already has you fúcking clown.

It's not that large. They'll pay you more than £1 a day. Christ, even minimum wage demands that.

Housing is most people's biggest expense. It makes a huge difference. Comparable house down south would probably cost me at least £300pcm extra. Perhaps if I re-phrase the benefit, it'll be easier to understand. "Hey Jeff! Here is £300pcm extra free! To spend on things which are a bit cheaper anyway. Would that make your life any easier?"

You get the same money as anywhere else but London, despite the cost of living being loads less. Same money. Things, including many important things such as how much you pay for housing, cost a lot less. Come on UJ, you're almost there.... That is why I said "employed" when making my comparison. If you're in work, and can remain in work, the North is better value for money. In the majority of cases, I think it's better value for money than London too. The weighting never really addresses the weight. The problem is that opportunity has been historically limited up here since the collapse of industry. The weather is really the only real shítter.

It's not about rating. More about cost of living and the dormitory factor. If you don't live in a big southern city, then you're likely living in a place that doesn't give a shít because London is just up the road. Why should it? Hence, sleepy little towns with too many people and f**k all to do. You get a lot more for your money up here. Want to challenge that fact? Speak to anyone that goes to away games.

Barely. London plus dormitory towns for people who can't afford to live in London. Or not good/hardworking enough, from a Tory point of view. Enjoy. The employed get to live up here.

And yet, the Trade Unions don't really have the place they did. Yes, Miliband was their man, leading people like yourself to chuck about the Red Ed tag until this year! On the other scale of things, the same people that moan about the unions now moan because all the politicians are PPE grads and not shop stewards, etc, representing the working man. The charge laid at your feet, again and again, is that this last-minute scaremongering-SNP stuff just shows you have nothing positive to say about Conservative policy. Because you know it's all bollócks and bribery. There's no shame in that. I actually commend you for not pushing it. Good to know that there is some shít that even Tory voters won't claim as their own.

Tories got a real hard-on for SNP. "Don't think about our policies. Don't even think about their policies. Think about the policies of a minority party that most won't be able to vote for." "Erection" is just about right for these cocks.

Super. That's really convinced me to vote for the part of the Conservative manifesto you're pushing. Oh, you weren't. Again. We're not just talking Northern cities. Anywhere of a decent size, or remembers the industrial age, tends to go Labour. Look at my home city, consistently two little dots of red since 1997. Seems to me that people start voting Labour when they've enough people to look in the eye, or enough post-industrial blight to savour, especially if they remember the days when that industry used to provide opportunity. If I had my way, I'd formalise the care/fear arrangement, move all you Tories to the south for a few years, and come back when you've finished eviscerating each other. Last man crawling gets the stock options.

David Cameron in the papers today warning the British public of a "con trick" was one of the funniest, least self-aware parts of the last five years. It's fear mongering. There is no defensible arm of policy in the Tory manifesto. Let's whip up fear about those Scots breaking the Union again. Sorry you don't/can't see it.

I think not. As I said before, it's telling that unsubstantiated fearmongering about the SNP is the strategy on the eve of the election. None of you Tories are voting for anything, at least anything you can defend.

Not sure that geographical clustering of their MPs is germane to anything, nor a shared gotta-have-it goal. The Guardian's political map shows that if it were up to people who lived in cities, particularly northern cities, then we'd go red every time. Do the cities have the country by the balls? And it's not like the Lib Dems didn't have their own cause to demand when going into government. They had to have a new voting system! They've got the government by the balls! Facile speculation from people that seemingly can't remember the last five years. Whoever is in charge of government has the balls. The Lib Dems learned that. Why haven't some of you?

Like the Lib Dems had the Tories by the balls? It comes to something when the anti-Labour rhetoric is about the party they might be in coalition with, rather than them themselves, especially after seeing five years of Lib Dem testicular crushing pain and their consequent oblivion.

I'm with you to an extent, but only a certain extent. I disagreed with the principles of dragging up a school letter. On slow news days, we're getting UKIP headline grabbers from 2003 being dressed up as stuff they say today. The constant refrain about UKIP is that Farage comes across well but they've no depth, and beyond Farage, anything goes. Even Farage himself has changed; I liked him a lot better when he was delivering barnstorming speeches about sovereignty in the EU Parliament, a lot less when he's trying to appeal to the baser (and unfounded) fears of the electorate. I've seen two articles on UKIP Parliamentary candidates today. This guy, who vowed to kill any Asian Prime Minister, and another, who has a spent conviction for arson. Now I am a big believer in rehabilitation, but fielding a candidate with an arson charge (spent or not) as a Parliamentary candidate perhaps gives an idea of the talent they had available.

I like this Guardian map showing where they think the constituencies will go. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/apr/20/election-2015-constituency-map Backs up Verbal's claim of London being a Labour town. London loves social democracy, it'd seem. The other striking thing about the map is that rural vs post-industrial does just fine for describing most of the Labour/Tory split. I also like that Southampton is the only little bit of red in a sea of blue. And to think, the Tories among us want to turn our little city the colour of our rivals

I'm not sure that the Lou's new avatar is helping really. I'm in my forties now, and therefore past my "Carry On Innuendo" peak, but even so, it conjures up all sorts of naughty metaphors, mostly to do with riding.

Great stuff, OldNick. Bases covered.

The Ironing Out Age. Historians will pore over it, but wonder why it had its own age, exactly. They'll learn.

It is very much I position I've evolved to, based on what is actually realistic on such an entrenched issue. Going Romanov isn't really all that glamourous. History doesn't regard that sort of thing well, but there are a significant proportion of the population that'll never be happy without a monarch. It's something the Americans don't got, so in lieu of oblivion, I'd go for an upgrade and change the rules of succession.

That was in the days when you insisted that you ended all threads. Ah, the cub days, watching you scamper about, shít on people's threads (in nicest possible way) and confuse people.

The specific subset of morons that was raised by VHS in an age so crazy, some people believed that Amstrad was an acceptable brand. I am proud to be among this group (raised by VHS moron. F**k Amstrad gear).

Cheers. I knew that'd play well with a certain section of the electorate

On the Royal subject, my position is basically this. I like Kings, Queens and all that stuff. It stops us from being a dirty republic like the French. The pomp and pageantry are ace, and I'm sure that supporters of the monarchy as constituted are correct when they say that it brings money into the country. What I don't like is the way our heads of state are selected. Born to the right womb was never a wholly superb way to pick a head of state, which is why other countries abandoned it or just never implemented it, and others, like us, have pushed it to the side when it comes to the big stuff, like making law. It makes for interesting historical reading, but in practice, you get a mad king, a dim king, an overly pious king, a tyrant. It's all a shot in the dark, which is why we've mitigated it with constitutional democracy and restricting Royals to a ceremonial role. How ceremonial that is would seem to be a matter for some question; I'll guess we'll find out when Charles takes the throne The big problem I have with the monarchy is twofold, but amounts to the same thing. My kid, much as she might proclaim it, can never be Queen of this country. In this age where we're all seeking equality, it's the inviolable apex of the class system. My view is that it should be the apex of the honours system, recognition of those who have done great works for their country, irrespective of the womb they sprung from. Take the inheritance angle out of the question, make the identification of candidates and selection a national debate and hand out terms of 20 years or so, renewable if they turn out to be a bloody good King or Queen. It's not a popular view, but I reckon it's a way to align our traditions with our values without the grubby spectacle of an election, that could possibly inspire a great deal of philanthropy

Elizabeth Taylor? That's inviting trouble I don't blame them for putting Diana in the name at all. It's what families do to honour their lost ones. My first kid has my nan's first name as a middle name, and I've always liked that decision.

Name: Smirking_Saint Cause of death: Spontaneous testicular explosion, triggered after deceased came within 50 mile radius of Margot Robbie.