Lord Duckhunter

If I voted Tory in the same constituency as you , then I have 1 vote "considered" and yet you have 3.Makes a bit of a mockery of one man one vote.

Of course I haven't misunderstood. If nobody gets the required 50% vote, then the worst performing candidates supporters second vote, has exactly the same weight as my first and only vote. Nick Griffin could vote BNP, Monster Raving Loony and then Labour, ensuring the Labour candidates victory.

I never said they would, all I said was that Nick Griffin's second and third choice vote will carry as much weight as a little old ladys. One of the leaflets I got backing AV stated that this system meant that MP's would need to broaden their appeal to attract the 2nd and third votes of all voters. In Burnley the BNP got nearly 10% of the vote, how are the other parties going to reach out and "broaden their appeal" to those voters?

Why should someone's second and third vote carry the same weight as someone's first and only vote, please explain? I was always under the impression it should be One man, one vote, not, some men 3 votes.

Injuries are just one of those things, no point in worrying about what might have been, but a chance for someone to step up to the plate. I liked the look of Guly in the role earlier in the season and if Lambert can reproduce his form of last season this wont be so much of a loss. I've always felt that Lambert and Barnard were too one paced and sides could squeeze us up a bit if the both played in the side. As hard working as Barny is, he hasn't quite got that turn of pace, where as Guly has. Hopefully they'll need to defend slightly deeper allowing Lambert to profit from a bit more space. Connolly is a decent option off the bench if we need a goal. AL is the key, not Barny, if Adam plays the majority of the remaining minutes, we'll go up.If not it'll be close.

A little old lady in Burnley has voted Labour all her life. She goes into the booth on polling day 2015 and puts a 1 by the Labour candidate. A racist moron follows her in and puts a 1 by the BNP candidate. He then puts a 2 by the Monster raving loony party member and a 3 by the local right wing Tory.As Labour fail to get the required 50%, His second and third vote count for exactly the same as the little old ladys first and only vote. The reason he voted for the Tory was the tough stance that the candidate had taken over immigration and the BNP man was impressed with some of his views on that. Thousends of other BNP supporters had also put a 2 or 3 by this candidate and despite losing to the Labour candidate in the intial vote he wins the seat. The local Labour party decide at the next election that they need to broaden their appeal and get more second and third votes. So their prespective candidate starts to toughen his stance on immigration. With FPTP all the idiots, racists and loony's votes are wasted, with AV their second and third choices can carry the same weight as normal decent people's first and only vote, and some people call this fair? There is a lot wrong with our electrol system, from it being weighted in favour of Labour to Scottish and Welsh MP's voting on measures that dont affect their voters. If you want to change the system to PR, then that is a fair and reasonable stance to take. One man one vote, with MP's based on the parties % of the whole vote (I still prefer FPTP, but can see the train of thought being followed by PR supporters), but this is not and never will be a fairer system than FPTP.

Huddersfield's home form is what has cost them, they drew at home to Swindon, drew against a 10 man Orient after being 2 up and drew home to Oldham who were in the middle of an awful run. My mate supports them and is more worried about Brentford and D&R at home, than MK and Brighton away.As we saw on Saturday, sometimes home games get nervy and the team get anxious. He claims they're likely to beat MK,but then draw with D&R particulary if we've lost at Brighton and they are back in second.He thinks if we win Sat, then it's all over for them.

It was his dogma that stopped all of Tony Blairs much needed reforms of Health, Education and more importantly Frank Field's welfare reforms. Only the Labour party could reform the NHS and Blair has admitted he wasn't bold enough.Brown and his cronies dogma meant Labour wasted large majorities and decent ecomonic conditions, because Brown reverted to type. Are you seriously trying to say Brown was a dogmatic CoE, but changed when he became PM. Everything he ever did was for political gain, he was permanently fighting an election, looking for angles to make the Tories look bad. Look at the way he messed up the election that never was. Briefed there was going to be one, because he thought the conditions were favourable, then one George O speech over inheritance tax goes down well and he bottles it. It was Govt by opinion polls, and he'll go down as one of the worst PM's in living memory.

Fitting end. Was the only time I didn't want Saints to score again, nearly started cheering when Chris Marsden's effort was tipped over. It used to said about Ian Botham that he wrote his own headlines, well Matt did that day. He's proberly the only player I've ever seen who could have an injury hit season without a goal, and then pop one in like that in the last few minutes.

You are joking, right? Brown was the most dogma driven PM of modern times. From selling our gold at rock bottom prices to destroying the private sector pension provisions, he was a completely and utterly driven by misguided dogma.

Being strong is not one of the words I would use to describe the last Labour Govt. Tony Blair's reforms were oppossed at every turn by Brown, so much so that he later said he regretted not being bold enough. The excallant Frank Field was thrown to the Wolves over "thinking the unthinkable" regrading welfare reform.All because Blair was weak and the whole Govt was paralysed by the TB/GB leadership farce.

I thought him, Perry and Lucketti were superb for us in the Nigel Pearson escape. However I wouldn't want any of them now.

I agree, they might win 4 and draw 1 max, but more likely is 3 wins 2 draws or 4 wins 1 defeat. I agree with OP I think 86 points will do. We could be sat here next Sat with half that already.

I reckon 86 points will do, that's 4 wins. Surely we cant mess that up?

Perfect result for us. That's 20 games unbeaten for Town, personally I cant see them getting to 25, that's a tough ask. Win Tuesday and I reckon it's in the bag.

What if he passed away, then surely the Chelsea supporters would have even more concerns.

"Love man" by Otis Redding used to get my Mrs going a few years ago.Nowadays if I started dancing along to it, my belly would be wobbling about and she tell me to sit down and behave.

2 games in hand when you are only 2 points behind is better any day of the week. You could lose one of them 5-0 and still end up a point above once you've caught up. If we cant win one out of Plymouth away or Rochdale away, we dont deserve to go up.

What would happen if RA passed away, would his family continue to fund these losses or would they want the money back?

I'm going to reserve judgement on this mainly because I dont understand the complex world of finance. However, is what ML and his family doing very much different that what Mad Milan did at Skatesville, or even Gaydamak in his early years? People jumped up and down about Wilde spending money we didn't have on a gamble for Premiership football, is this so very different?

Draw for me, it would keep Huddersfield's unbeaten run going to something like 20 games. There is no way they'll go 26 games unbeaten(they are just not that good), so they'll have to lose another one. Allowing for my poor maths I make that 86 points for them if they win the remaining 4. Meaning we need to win 5 of our 8 to finish above them.Forget about PBoro, if they draw tomorrow, they'll need to win all 5 left to even reach 86. If Huddersfield draw tomorrow and then win their remaining 5 games they'll deserve promtion, they'll be unbeaten in 2011. (not going to happen). My gut feeling is 86 points will be enough, unless Town win tomorrow.

The muslim faith appears to have a serious issue with it's treatment of females in general, and headlines like this do not help in changing that or help in any way. The problem is not sex offenders, but that across the muslim world women are treated as second class citizens. It obviously varies from Country to Country and some are more hardline than others, but we seem to accept a lower level of human rights when it comes to Muslim women, then for our own Western women.

"Keith Harris, chairman of investment bankers Seymour Pierce, which has been given the job of finding new owners, said he would ‘not dismiss’ the claim that the frontrunners in the bid to takeover the club is the Russian-backed Convers Sports Initiatives company." Well done Keith

This is a true story. A Geordie mate of mine had this new bird and he kept going on about how much he was getting and how fit she was. She had kids so she wouldn't let him stay, however he kept telling us about how he could turn up anytime and bang her. He got one of the lads to drop him round her house and said his sister would pick him up later on her way home from a night out, as she didn't drink. Next time we saw him he was gutted.Said that this bird was on and on saying "more, more, stay a bit longer" but his sister was outside waiting. He said to her "I would do, but what about my sister"( he didn't want her waiting for too long), to which the bird replied "fine no problem, if it turns you on, go and get her".He kept saying to us "****ing hell, she was up for a bit of pussy and all that was there was my ****ing sister". That was just too pervy for him so he dumped her.

Even that old Leftie Michael White seems to agree it's a waste of time, first time I've ever agreed with him. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/mar/28/2011-census-not-worth-the-trouble