Verbal

Does not compute. I've never suggested he wasn't.

Agreed. Red Ken got elected in the 80s because large numbers of Londoners wanted to say f**k you to Thatch and Murdoch's hacks who hated him. (Thatch famously abolished the GLC just to get rid of him.) 'Red' actually made him popular - that and the free bus rides and cheap tube fares.

He may be good, he may be crap. But you will go nuts if you make up your mind after one day, then find yourself having to trust the alternative... Decide in haste, repent at leisure.

It's a long and sorry tale, trousers. According to Liberty, over 60 new powers, contained in 25 separate Acts of Parliament, have eroded rights enshrined not only in the Human Right Act, but in Magna Carta itself. They range from excessive surveillance (eg. anti-terror laws now used to spy on parents claiming their children live in popular school catchment areas) and extradition without a prima facie case (Gary McKinnon, the autistic hacker facing the rest of his life in a US jail), to imprisonment without trial (Britain has one of the longest periods of detention without charge in the western world). And, on the other side of the coin, Britain remains - the FOI notwithstanding - the most secretive state in the western world. David Miliband has been heavily implicated in swinging the wrecking ball through such ancient rights, to the point where he is being accused of acceding to requests or information to torture British subjects. And, again, his support of New Labour's war in Iraq means we HAVE to see the back of him. However good or bad EM proves to be, electing DM was unthinkable. According to Shami Chrakrabarti, who widely respected lawyer who runs Liberty, 'We have lived under one of the most authoritarian ages in living memory.'

You could be right. However, the fallout from Labour's invasion of Iraq (!) and its enthusiastic participation in torturing the opposition in the War on Terror meant that DM was and may continue to be damaged goods - especially as the various inquiries and leaks continue. DM has for long been one of the loudest cheerleaders for war (see his caught-on-camera moment yesterday), and may yet face legal trouble over his 'acquiescence' (and foreknowledge?) to the torturers. He was also one of the ringleaders in the closing down of civil liberties - perhaps New Labour's greatest crime over the last nine years.

The weirdness of scientology isn't the problem - it's the thuggish, oppressive way in which they deal with dissenters and critics. Campaigns of sustained intimidation are common, not just against those who have the temerity to leave, but against anyone who investigates them in any way whatsoever.

Because, if you do maths you've just supplied, it means certain electoral victory for Labour next time. HTH.

Ask Benjii. He's the expert apparently - but it seems in his cap-doffing universe to exclude anyone from the traditional breeding grounds of our glorious rulers.

I'd agree with that. The harm done by the massively escalating wealth gap was a point well made, and needs to be addressed urgently, unless Britain is to slump mindlessly into a kind of East-European low-wage economy with all the economic downshifting that that entails for everyone but the super-rich Marie Antoinettes. It does, though, mean that EM will have to abandon not just the name but all the corrosive neoliberal policies of New Labour.

Which was rather rather my point, re: minority of Labour MPs, etc etc. Democracy is and always will be deficient in some way - not that that's a reason for complacency.

Rubbish?

“The English FA did approach us with a view to recreating the project for 2010. They sent us some tapes and everything,” reveals Dr Wellington. “But what you have to realise is that for hoaxes to work, they need at least a small element of plausibility."

By the same token, the majority of people did not vote for Cameron. If ever he becomes PM we will have real problems.

Is this intentionally amusing? I do hope so.

Spelling: two 'n's.

Proof, pudding, etc. 'Praising to the hilt' isn't exactly what the IMF said, though, is it - and they themselves hardly have a monopoly on wisdom. Up until last week they were predicting a double dip. What happened in a week? And 'a good education and upbringing = statesmanlike qualities?' I really do find it constantly surprising - though characteristically, subserviently British - that we still doff our caps to them upstairs.

Ever heard Churchill speak, or seen pictures of Disraeli? Wouldn't have won without the union vote? That distinguishes him from which Labour leader exactly? Is EM and his appearance really that much of a liability compared to balloon-faced, gossamer-deep Cameron or that toffee-nosed, silver-spooned dumbass Osborne?

After one of your questions.

Whether he did or not, the answer is yes, sadly.

Absolutely right, BTF. As a former member of BECTU, I know that members have been able to do this since the 1980s. (And note: this was the result of pressure from members, NOT Thatch.)

And bring back tommac.

Fortunately, Eady has been kicked out. This utter nitwit was responsible for more damage to freedom of expression than anything or anyone in the last few years. We should hopefully now see a fall in successful actions against message boards - at least for libel and slander. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8003396/Justice-Eady-replaced-as-Britains-top-libel-judge.html

Earning more in tax-free expenses than my salary. (In the good/bad old days when ITV was king.) I remember, shortly after starting, being marched into Personnel by my union rep who yelled: 'This employee MUST be paid his mileage allowance! The fact that he doesn't have a car has nothing to do with it!' Bliss.

But they are rarely 'private individuals' are they? They are frequently chairmen (and always men) of often large companies, who are almost always contributing funds without consulting employees or shareholders. And they contribute in order to buy influence.

You made more sense p*ssed. And then hardly any. What's with the weird punctuation and bizarre syntax? You appear to be saying the opposite of what you (presumably - who knows?) intend.