Lord Duckhunter

At the moment anyone who wants a S/T can get one. Once we start getting a few thousend on a waiting list things might start to move in that direction.

This was my point. Paddy Pantsdown was complaining that the make up of the Lords was based on who you know or who your father was. An elected Lords based on his chosen method would also be based on who you know. Instead of just appointing their "friends" they would just put them at the top of the party list. As for "who your father was", I think Queenie may have reached the Head of State that way. The Lib/Dem position is this; an elected Lords, but from a party list system. Eventual removal of any herditary principle, apart from the head of state, no referendum on the changes, and The Commons only gets 2 weeks only to debate it.That's why it'll get chucked out, it's a shiete ill thought out bill, worked out on the back of a fag packet and used as part of a grubby little deal between coalition partners.It's no way to go about reform of our consituation.

I'm all for Lord's reform but this was a dog's breakfast of a bill. 15 year terms, AV and party list system is hardly democratic and will do nothing to change the Lords. I heard that boring bufoon Paddy Pantsdown on the BBC waffling on (using 5 words when 1 would do) on how it was a point of principle that in a modern democracy nobody should have a role on the basis of family history or who they know . Perhaps he thinks Queenie was elected. He went on to make the claim that the poll tax and the Iraq war would have been stopped if there was an elected Lords. This dispite claiming that an elected Lords would not be a threat to the Commons and that the will of the commons would always prevail. He geniunely seemed to think he could, in the same arguement, claim that the Iraq war would have not happened, but that the Commons would be able to force laws through as they do at present.With chumps like Pantsdown in the Lords there is a real need for reform, but this bill would give us even more Pantsdown's than we have now.So it's a no from me.

There was a bloke on Talksport last night, was some sort of expert on Scots football and Rangers. He said that it was the Scottish FA doing what they do best and sitting on the fence, said that they cant make a decision so have handed it to FIFA. Went on to add that his understanding was that the players were on very firm ground and that the only people who he'd spoken to that belived that Rangers had a case were Rangers themselves.

Has anyone been down there today either to buy or to collect. I have to go and collect my Nipper's as it's a consession and I'm off tomorrow, I'm a bit pushed for time and dont want to be waiting around for ages.

+1.......

You accuse me of having "anti Labour" glasses, but the hat very cleary fits yourself. It is always Torys bad for sinister selfish reasons, Labour wrong because they were "scared". It was the same with the Levison threads. Torys were in the Murdoch's pocket ect, whereas Labour just went along with him because they had to, or were scared. I am no Tory voter, all I am trying to do is address a bit of balance to the Anti Tory rants on here.

How did they get on in the European elections?

At least it's one minister, one scandal. The last lot had a BOGOF offer taken up by Blunkett & Mandleson .

The enquiry into the RBS named Brown and Balls and concluded that their foolish decision to take regulation away from the BoE and set up the Tripartite regulation was disastrous. Every single Tory interviewed at that time argued against this move but Brown and Balls blundered ahead. Hence why they were the only politicians named in the RBS report. Terry Smith speaks the most sense I've heard on the whole thing. He says it was not a question of not enough regulation, but the wrong regulation. There should have been less regulation, but it should have been proper regulation.Each bank has countless compliance officers and there are thousends of pages of regulations. As Dominic Lawson said on QT last night,the banks took retail money and used it to gamble. Brown, Balls and everyone was fully aware they were doing this, yet nobody saw what was coming down the line. Why? Maybe it was that they really did believe they had "abolished boom and bust". "No more Boom & Bust" alongside "an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London” sum up Gordon Brown turning a blind eye (no pun intended). Nick Robinson said on the BBC that Labour really do not want a judge led review. They were in charge, if there are skeletons, they will be Labour ones. But they have calculated that Cameron will not call one, and therefore can be seen on the right side of the arguement. Tory thinking is that any skeletons can be unearthed by a Parlianmentry one, without too much light being shone on their donations and other aspects that may effect them. The simple fact of the matter is that all 3 parties are playing politics with this, with eyes firmly on the next election.

Desperate stuff. Terry Smith talks more sense than all the politicans added together and he has been very critical of the Govt and it's economic plans. Where is Gordon Brown's quote to Barclays and other banks in 2006, when he told them "I congratulate you, on remarkable achievements, an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London.” That was the beginning, how did Brown's "golden age" end?

This did make me laugh. I'm sure Armando Iannucci could make a fantastic "thick of it" type show about these clowns. The only problem would be everyone would think it was too far fetched.

There have been allegations that involve "senior Government figures" from that time. Therefore anyone close to Brown and the Treasury certainly have questions to answer. Andrew Neil broke it down on This Week whilst questioning Alistar Campbell and from Campbell's heated response( on a programme which is normally pretty sedate) suggest to me that maybe there are some skeltons in some senior closets. Neil said there are two strands to this. From 2006-08 bankers fixed the rate for personal gain. When the economy went into meltdown in 2008, did Labour have discussions with Barclays about fixing the rate to make them look more secure than they were? Remember barclays is one bank that refused a bail out from UK PLC. Campbell was trying to blur the two entirely different "fixes" of the rate, and Neil kept trying to ask him specfically about the 2008 fix. Added to this Baroness Vadera's statement that she has "no recollection" of a conversation. In politics "no recollection" is like "friends of" or "sources close to" or "misled" instead of lie. "No recollection" is basically, I did but I doubt if you can prove it. However, if evidence emerges later I can stand up and say I didn't lie, I just forgot." Really waiting to see Gordon in front of the enquiry. Praising Barclays and other banks in 2006 he said “I congratulate you, on remarkable achievements, an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London.”

I thought it was embarressing and just about sums up the direction the programme is heading. Dimble was awful, should have just told him to STFU when he kept interupting people. Robin Day would have been turning in his grave as Dimble let him ramble on over and over again. I'm all for eccentrics, but they should be interesting and articulate and he was neither. He sums up the punk movement, rehash of Eddie Cochran songs and rock and roll riffs whilst dressing like a ***t swearing a lot, and giving himself a child like name. It's a shame one of the panelists didn't use him as an example of the dangers of drug use. I disagree with some of the other posters, I thought Mensch did ok. She used to work in the music industry and for EMI and her husband manages Metallica, Red Hot Chili Peppers & Jimmy Page . So it's entirely believeable that she used drugs. The problem Mensch had was she was up against AJ, who is by far the best and most believeable politician Labour have produced in the past 20 years, and I also thought Lawson's boy was good as well. She is just the latest in a long line of "chicks" all 3 major parties seem to think shows how modern they are. ****ing hell, Maggie Thatcher, Barbara Castle and Shirley Williams they are not. But then Lydon or is it Rotten, is hardly John Lennon, more Adam Ant I would say.

I wouldn't be surprised if they do what a friend of my son's family do. Because they're so tight, they call our number and hang up before we answer. My boy then does 1471 and then 3 for ring back, and we end up paying for the call.....

I added 2 of my kids and the 3rd one was getting back to me with his number (as he had forgotten it). When he gave it to me, the other kids had dissapreared off my account and I cant for the life of me see where the add family and friends link has gone. It was really easy you just clicked on a link. It went after the monday madness fiasco, when the ticket site crashed. I was just going to keep checking back as I'm sure they'll sort it once the Season ticket period is over

What a bunch of amateurs. The whole thing has been a complete and utter shambles. I understand that maybe the website would crash and the lines be busy, although it's hardly The Olympics. We're not selling that many. Tried to buy online, but all my Friends and family had dissapered. Could have bought 4 online all in my name and at renewal prices (what a cock up), but one wanted to pay by installments and I wanted them all to have them in their own names. Rang up to book 4 tickets, after giving up after 3 hours yesterday. One for me, with my mate an existing S/T holder. No problem so far, got a seat 2 along from him.Then wanted 3 together for my nipper and 2 older boys in block 40. Found 3 together, went through names, customer numbers ect, then got to how do you want to pay? Two of them on cerdit card, one on instalments. "Oh you cant do that, you have to all pay in one method". Tried to explain that I was paying for my nipper, that one of my eldest had given me cash and the other could only pay by installments. You'll have to book seperate then . "Why the **** didn't you tell me that at the start". To which she replied "how did I know how you were going to pay". Said ok, can you still get 3 together. "Just depends if someone snaps the other one up whilst I'm booking the other 2". Luckily nobody did. But I cant believe there's no system that can process 2 different payment methods. Then told me I needed to pick nipper's up to prove his age, no problem with that. She told me from Monday, but advised "I wouldn't go down there until at least the end of the week, because it'll be mayhem". I'm no IT expert or no ticket guru, but I'm ****ing sure selling tickets to people who want to buy them has to be simplier than this. They also know there will be "mayhem" early next week, but instead of doing something about it, advise people to stay away.

Danny Fox was in Bournemouth this afternoon, told my mate that the kit was like a Sunday league one. My son has seen the pics on Facebook, so he was defo with him.

Andrew Neil, who is fast becoming the best interviewer on TV, interviewed Douglas Alexander on The Daily Politics. Alexander repeated the same old tired cliché (obviously on message) of cuts being "too fast, too deep". Neil then pointed out that the cuts amounted to 0.8% of GDP, "yet this is too deep"? he questioned. Alexander was just waffling on, whilst Neil keep on questioning him "if 0.8% is too deep, what is the right level of cuts"? Of course an answer was not forthcoming. These Labour chumps really do try and take people for fools, dont they?

Great article on the BBC website........ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18611936

A friend of mine was having problems conceiving and saw various NHS consultants. Because she was in her 30's and her partner already had children, they were way down the waiting list for NHS, so they decided to go private. They arranged it and when they had their intial consultation it was the very same consultant they had seen on the NHS. People go on about private and the privatisation of the NHS, but one of the biggest beneficiaries are the Doctors themselves. Anyway to cut a long story short. They ended up with 2 healthy and happy twins. They told me that they paid for the private treatment in instalments which carried very very low interest payments. The only thing they had to fork out for which wasn't included under finaces was the drugs, which off the top of my head set them back about £700. It got me thinking that maybe a lot of boob jobs, IVF, Sex changes, cosmetic stuff could be done on the NHS, but be charged back to the recipient over a number of years, much in the way that student loans are. I must stress, this would be lifestyle surgery only.

But it's not Free at the point of delivery. When I get my normal bout of tonsillitis, I go to the Doctor. My visit is free, but the prescription he gives me is not. My visits to the dentist aren't free. The issue I have with NHS debate is the misleading slant that is put on this, mainly by left leaning people, that it is either the wonderful "free at the point of delivery" UK version, or the American version. There are plenty of inbetweens, Germany as you have outlined, France, Spain and loads of other Countries, none of which long for the UK version. The NHS maybe a grand and noble thing in principle, but in practise it wastes a huge amount of our money and delivers some treatments that the State should not be funding.

What I was trying to say was that maybe McGuinness is doing the right thing for the right reasons. And maybe I was wrong to think that he should be thrown into jail. We tried throwing him and his like in jail and that just added fuel to the fire. Maybe by turning a blind eye and drawing a line, the people of NI have a "peace". It's not a "peace" that many of us would recongnise, as there are still divide's and the IRA haven't gone away, but it's a much better life than they have had for the past 30 years.

What gets my goat is the coverage of this and the constant "how wonderful the queen is" by making this gesture. As a non political head of state, she doesn't get to decide who she shakes hands with and who she doesn't.She just does what she's told to do as the figure head of our nation. The real courage here was shown by McGuinness, not only does he have a electrate to think about (many of whom will be sickened by this), but it wasn't so long ago that this gesture would be an act of suicide. Even now there could be a bullet with his name on. Why has he taken the risk? There was an expert on the IRA on TV last night. He claimed the whole thing was about making Adams electable in the South. He said that the IRA had got all they were going to get out of the Brits in the North, and were now turning their attention to politics in the South. He claimed that a sinnfein president would ramp the pressure up on the UK Government and if sinnfein could become the major party in the South, that would serve the interests of hard line Republicans more than an armed struggle in the North. Shaking hands with the Queen will soften their image to the mainstream voters in the South.

I agree. What I've found is younger people do not have such a romantic view of a united Ireland.