Verbal

Hmm. Independent Leader writer vs internet dweebs. Tough choice.

Your first paragraph is wrong. The biggest single reason that MPs of a particular party are elected disproportionately to the popular vote nationally is that political allegience is unevenly distributed. Changing 'disparities' by altering constituency boundaries would make little difference to this. The so-called 'Lothian Question' is quite separate from this, and I don't know why you bring it up. Those for and against AV would mostly agree it's a bad thing - but it's simply not relevant to FPTP vs AV. Ultimately, the reason to support AV is to improve upon a botched, iniquitous system that does little more than pay lip service to representative democracy. It's as important for democracy to ditch FPTP as it was to dispose of the equally 'tried and tested' rotten boroughs of the nineteenth century. When I hear people - including sensible ones like BTF - falling back on the 'it produces strong governments' argument I despair. The veneer of democracy can seem very thin at times, and a disturbing authoritarianism is often lurking beneath.

You don't need scanners to spot a DVD. It's usually obvious. The sorting office near me was famous for making them 'disappear'. And this is clearly more important than mere parcel bombs being sent to football managers. Poor Neil Lennon. It's horrifying living under that sort of threat.

The acting isn't very good.

Whether you like it or not, that is your next Chancellor. Take my advice, and emigrate now. Please.

Probably a DVD. Most of my post, when it's a film, gets intercepted by Royal Mail.

Oh, it was a dumbass thing to do however you look at it. Gordo was nowhere near as clever as he liked to think he was, and held sway because of his narcissistic self-belief and his seemingly limitless capacity to bully. Looking at it historically, I suppose the losses the UK Treasury incurred as a result of the sale of the gold at rock-bottom prices was perhaps greater, though not by much, than the losses incurred when Thatch conducted a fire sale of the 'family silver' - state assets sold at similarly rock-bottom prices, and with consequences we stare at every time, for example, we open an energy bill from a price-fixing, profiteering American or French-owned utility.

Brown's decision to sell gold at $275-317 over a three year period was horrendous, given it's now trading at $1115 or more. But he didn't do it to fill a public sector black hole. The funds were reinvested in currency bonds - 40% US dollar, 40% Euro's and 20% Yen. Nowhere near the returns on gold in hindsight, of course. I don't really get why Brown wants the IMF job. That place is still dominated by Chicago-School economists - Thatcher's inspiration. Hence their ability to wreck countries by other means.

This thread is full of people who have no idea what they're angry about. Not a single clue.

We haven't had one man one vote since 1928.

This is a classic garbage in, garbage out argument. Start with a silly premise, end with a silly conclusion. And I notice you have to resort to some plainly anti-democratic arguments to support it. By what criteria are you proposing to disenfranchise 'idiots, racists and loonies'? Their votes SHOULD carry the same weight as those of the 'little old lady from Burnley', regardless of how repugnant you might find their views.

I assume 'or' is a typo.

Dead wrong. Even simplers.

This is the one subject that you're distinctly unsound on, BTF. Your fear of the influence of minority parties is unfounded, I think, not least because the British electorate remains wedded to the basic shape of the two-party system. Yes, it gives minority parties a more representative influence in Parliament - but isn't that what 'representative democracy' is supposed to be about. The scaremongers against PR generally frequently cite two illusory spectres: the 'horror' of the absence of 'strong government' (which betrays an authoritarian weakness; after all plenty of 'weak' governments elsewhere, like the US, have been a damned sight better at presiding over successful economies than ours); and the ida that, say, neo-Nazi parties would gain influence (ignoring the distinct probability that voters, who have a habit of voting rationally, would adjust their voting behaviour accordingly to ensure that that did not happen). If AV gets voted down, it would be a tragedy for the long-term health of British democracy. It's not by any means the best form of PR; but it's a badly needed start.

I guessed it wouldn't be long before mini-turkish rolled in. So the conclusion of this thread appears to be that turkish wants to reserve the right to be a petty racist scumbag without being called one. Here are some that were made earlier: "The Blackshirts, praised by The Daily Mail for their 'sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine', would routinely march in the streets of London chanting: 'The Yids, the Yids, we've got to get rid of the Yids."

On the offchance that you are really THAT dim.

I'm assuming that you didn't intend the hilarious combination of that question and your avatar.

I honestly couldn't give a flying **** what you think. I'm just pointing out that your credentials as an anti-racist are, shall we say, a little thin.

Exactly. The embarrassing Freudian slip which he's now corrected and the blackface avatar mean he's perfectly qualified.

I broke my middle toe a while ago. They splinted it (strapped it to another toe) but didn't straighten it. Do I have a life of pain to look forward to? Or is there a way of avoiding delldays' posts?

Not really. A wholly objective definition of 'bellend' would always end with the words 'David Cameron'. Try it, you'll see.

Are you related to delldays in any way Ducky? You accidentally answered you own question. You can't be constantly acting in the name of a dogma and at the same time always pursuing a game of political advantage. They are diametric opposites.

Delldays, I'd reply to your hopeless waffle if only you showed the tiniest talent for following an argument. Keep trying, though - you might strike lucky one day. Brown a political idiot? Of course! But we were talking about 'dogma' before you tripped over yourself, as always. Now go away and think really, really hard, and see if you can come back with a post which even you could be proud of.

You're talking about Brown the Chancellor, not Brown the PM. I couldn't detect any dogma in Brown the PM - I couldn't detect much of anything really, apart from a REALLY bad temper.

An invisible bellend then?