I would like to have a rant at these idiotic "securecode" passwords for online transactions. I swear that high street retailers have banded together and forced these awful things onto the world of online retail.
I'll see your supermarkets and I'll raise you Vue cinemas, who have the cheek to take a £1.50 "booking fee" off you for buying tickets in advance off their website. Which does not take Amex, unlike the cinemas themselves, so I get 0.5% of the price back from Nationwide instead of 1.5% of it back from Amex, and it costs them less. Chiselling, chiselling gobshites.
Don't get me started on seats for the same film being £10.70 at Vue North Finchley but £12.35 at O2 Finchley Road. On the same day, at the same time. And no, it's not the 3D premium.
Above the line voting was introduced in 1984 after an infamous "tablecloth" election (the ballot paper looked like a tablecloth). Compulsory preferencing (a daft idea in itself, must be related to Oz's compulsory voting) requires voters to correctly rank each and every one of 100 candidates. "Spoiled" ballots reached 20%, IIRC.
The main parties spotted an opening for them to "help" voters, with the tradeoff of them being able to finely manipulate the election outcome.
Just ticking one box would signify a first preference for one party and cede control to that party of the entire subsequent preference flow.
In New South Wales, for its own state elections, this abuse was reformed in 2003, so now voters there are offered "partywise above the line voting." They can vote 1,2,3...n between parties, at least having some control over which party their vote ultimately goes to. Each party still retains control over the order in which its candidates get elected....
Surely it's time for Cameron to put his foot down and discipline William Hague. He keeps popping up and contradicting the PM's word on whether Parliament will get a second vote on Syria and he's in too deep with John Kerry who is also turning into a liability.
If Mr Cameron did indeed persuade Mr Hague not to resign over the issue, then what sanctions does he have? At the same time, if Mr Hague really felt as strongly about it as that, his actions now are at least consistent.
If the wikipedia article about Flodden is accurate, it seems to have been the most humiliating kilt-up loincloth-down bare-bottom spanking the English have ever applied to the pasty white Scotch cheeks.
What's amazing is that it took Scotland nearly another 200 years after Flodden to realise they weren't a proper, viable country at all!
Hang on - surely if John Kerry has managed to get the Russians to agree to do something about Syria's chemical weapons (admittedly a big 'if', but there are signs of progress), then that is a massive succeess for his, Obama's and (indirectly) Cameron's strategy?
Hang on - surely if John Kerry has managed to get the Russians to agree to do something about Syria's chemical weapons (admittedly a big 'if', but there are signs of progress), then that is a massive succeess for his, Obama's and (indirectly) Cameron's strategy?
Doesn't the achievement of diplomatic objectives through the threatened use of unlawful force constitute a crime of aggression under customary international law?
The Tories will never agree on party funding, they are dependent on a few rich people while their membership dies. It'll be interesting to see what the Lib Dems do though
And Labour has never agreed either - the Tories were always happy to cap (I believe at £10K) which Labour rejected because they thought the union affiliation fees should be counted as multiple donations under the cap.
Now, it may be that the Tories suggested this because they knew that Labour would reject it. And it may be that Labour suggested £5K because they knew the Tories would reject that.
I suspect that none of the parties are wholly innocent on this topic.
Comments
Don't get me started on seats for the same film being £10.70 at Vue North Finchley but £12.35 at O2 Finchley Road. On the same day, at the same time. And no, it's not the 3D premium.
The main parties spotted an opening for them to "help" voters, with the tradeoff of them being able to finely manipulate the election outcome.
Just ticking one box would signify a first preference for one party and cede control to that party of the entire subsequent preference flow.
In New South Wales, for its own state elections, this abuse was reformed in 2003, so now voters there are offered "partywise above the line voting." They can vote 1,2,3...n between parties, at least having some control over which party their vote ultimately goes to. Each party still retains control over the order in which its candidates get elected....
What's amazing is that it took Scotland nearly another 200 years after Flodden to realise they weren't a proper, viable country at all!
I had a run in with her which cost the BBC dear.
Now, it may be that the Tories suggested this because they knew that Labour would reject it. And it may be that Labour suggested £5K because they knew the Tories would reject that.
I suspect that none of the parties are wholly innocent on this topic.