Lord Duckhunter

The exit without a CVA was the vehicle used to punish Leeds -15. Boscombe got -15 for that and an extra 2 for multiple admins. It makes the Skates punishment seem very very lenient, for what is basically the same offense. It seems that having a CVA, but not paying it gets you a 5 point deduction over not having one, and past admins are not taken into account.

You posted that the Mail was for Hitler AGAINST our country, where is your proof of that, because the above isn't it.

I look forward to seeing your proof of the Mail's support of Hitler AGAINST our Country.

How does that work with drug dealers, surely they show no income but are loaded.

If you are going to call people moron's I suggest you use correct English when doing so. Otherwise you'll just look like a knob "mouthpeace "(sic) from the illiterate left. I dont normally pull people up over their English (as mine is poor) but someone calling others "morons" is fair game.

That's why the Lib/Dem proposals wont address the issue. Archer, Ashcroft and the rest of them, will be at the top of the party lists. You'll go into the booth to vote and end up with Ashcroft ect getting an electoral madate, and for 15 bloody years. 15 year terms maybe ok for Mugabe and his placemen, but surely a democratic country like ours should be above that.

I can see Dune's arguement even if I disagree with it. I can see Vebal's arguement, which I agree with. What I cant get my head round is Paddy Pantsdown and the rest of the tree huggers arguement that nobody should be involved with our consituation on the basis of who their father is, yet still want to retain Queenie. This strange position is also compounded by adding nobody should be involved on the basis of who they are friends with, and then call for a Party list system. If this is a "once in a lifetime" chance to make a real change then let's do it right.

It's really democractic because the idiots on the party list will stay there for 15 years, whereas at present the idiots stay there for life. The lib dems seem to want to pick and choose what parts of the constituation they think are fair, and which ones aren't. I'm against any part of our constituation being based on heredity principles, not just some of it.

If we follow the Lib/Dems reforms, we would end up with more and more Warsi's. Not only would the party lists be full of bootlicking professional politicans, but they would all tow the party line. At least the hereditary's didn't owe their position to any party leader and were also not professional politicans. Admittedly some of them were barking mad, but some of them were independant thinkers. I personally dont think that you can have a party list system and then expect the House of Lords to work as a check to the Commons. It will be stuffed full of placemen and women. As for another point made on here; It does make me laugh how the "right on" Labour and Lib/Dem parties, who are so much more progressive than the male dominated Torys, are still no nearer to a women leader than they were 35 years ago, when a women , Maggie Thatcher became Tory leader.

The other thing with S/T waiting list is it puts pressure on the Council/ local autherity when it comes to moving or expanding. My mate is a Spurs supporter and they have a system where tickets go on sale to people on the S/T waiting list first. He reckons this encourages people to go onto the waiting list even if they have no intention of ever getting a S/T. Spurs know this, but can pressure the council by saying we have x thousend on the waiting list. It may help smooth any difficulties with the council and really show how much a new ground is needed.

The problem with bad laws getting through is too much whipping and too many members of the Government. Once you take into account all the pps' and other assorted Govt jobs, and also the strong arm tactics of the whips, there aren't enough independantly minded MP's to block bad legislation.

The last time I listened to Radio 1 in the morning, I think the hairy Arsenal...I mean Cornflake, who was on. Would listen to Nicky Campbell and Whispering Bob in the evening, but once they shafted Bob I stopped listening.

The 2 week timetable was put in to stop opposition Filibustering and the Commons getting bogged down with endless amendments and votes.

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.