Eames

.....living without your love ain't nothing without your touch, me, heaven would feel like hell is living without you. /alicecooper

The other issue with the SNP is that you don't get Sturgeon. After today she'll release Alex from his dungeon......

I can't decide if those cartoons are exceptionally clever satire or about as amusing as trying to shave my pubes with a cheese grater?

Define "Win?" I read "win" as a working majority for any single party - Tory "win" therefore delivers Call me Dave as PM. Ed only gets to be PM IMO if he wins enough seats to guarantee a majority in coalition with the SNP which he has said he won't do....... so...... give him a couple of days he'll have done it. That for him will be just as damaging as Cleggs' involvement with the Tories in 2010. Works both ways though , if Labour go with SNP and SNP don't get things they have promised ( for example Clegg and tuition fee's ) they will be wiped out next time I thinks its more problematic than that. If Labour are seen to have to make major, preferential concessions to the Scots over the "English" in order to secure government there will be a massive backlash and quickly - a revolt by some of their own MPs would not be out of the question as a few nervously protect their own majorities.

I for one welcome our internet and app based overlord. :notworthy:

Thread of the Year 2015.

Define "Win?" I read "win" as a working majority for any single party - Tory "win" therefore delivers Call me Dave as PM. Ed only gets to be PM IMO if he wins enough seats to guarantee a majority in coalition with the SNP which he has said he won't do....... so...... give him a couple of days he'll have done it. That for him will be just as damaging as Cleggs' involvement with the Tories in 2010.

I don't think Al will get in but he'll get his deposit back easily enough. Haven't seen the video but surprised the Tory press have sat on that one for as long as they have.

According to the Huff Post we will have to wait until 6am to see if Farage has failed in Thanet. God I hope he does. I would love it.....love it if he loses. /Keegan

Perhaps they just really like a warming blast of air on a freshly showered testicle? Yeah......its just weird.

I'd agree with you from the point of view that the notion at least seems noble - and yet the execution has been anything but - especially the fit for work assessments carried out by that massive bunch of ATOSsers. People who can work and provide for themselves should - but they should also be supported to do it..... and only punished if they are proved to be deliberately feckless or obstructive. The other teeeny flaw in the arguement is that that "benefits culture" is in reality a tiny amount of ££ saved in comparison to what Starbucks, Amazon et al fail to pay in taxes because they are allowed to offset their profits in bizarre licencing arrangements with foreign arms of the same business. Trouble is - the CEOs of those companies are the same ones who pay £000s to political parties in donations so their behaviour is largely ignored. HMRC wrote of £bns of unpaid tax on behalf of big companies simple because it costs £££ to get at it via the Courts. Joe Bloggs and his can of stella have no such luxuries and feel the pinch immediately. is there evidence that that the CEO of Starbucks is a Tory donor ? Glad you mentioned Amazon , the same Amazon Ed named and shamed as tax avoiders and then used to collect Labours on-line donations I'm guilty of conflation (©Drat01) the general point that unpaid company tax dwarfs benefit fraud of course stands.

I'd agree with you from the point of view that the notion at least seems noble - and yet the execution has been anything but - especially the fit for work assessments carried out by that massive bunch of ATOSsers. People who can work and provide for themselves should - but they should also be supported to do it..... and only punished if they are proved to be deliberately feckless or obstructive. The other teeeny flaw in the arguement is that that "benefits culture" is in reality a tiny amount of ££ saved in comparison to what Starbucks, Amazon et al fail to pay in taxes because they are allowed to offset their profits in bizarre licencing arrangements with foreign arms of the same business. Trouble is - the CEOs of those companies are the same ones who pay £000s to political parties in donations so their behaviour is largely ignored. HMRC wrote of £bns of unpaid tax on behalf of big companies simple because it costs £££ to get at it via the Courts. Joe Bloggs and his can of stella have no such luxuries and feel the pinch immediately.

Ah.....its Owen Jones. Almost as bonkers as that "Dr Eoin Clarke" knobbler.

Nick Clegg to have the entire Liberal Democrat manifesto tattooed on his face?

Surely not? The use of word removed as a substitution for word removed indicates that that the word in question is unsuitable for the site and has been removed. Therefore the plural of words removed is words removed because more than one word removed has been removed, as opposed to multiple removals of the same singular word removed.

If Armando Ianucci had written that into a script for The Thick Of It - it would have been cut as too unbelievable. I can't believe no-one withing the Labour hierarchy said "Hang on Ed, this is a shit idea" If it contained any actual policy commitments I might have sort of understood what he was on about but it was just a bunch of airy fairy intentions that could be interpreted anyway Labour felt like anyway.

I was prepared to believe you until the link took me to Breitbart. Even if you believe the numbers supplied by the company ( I don't) Breitbart's "journalist" has still managed to misrepresent that. The £1m referred to turn over not profit.

As an aside it's pretty obvious Protein World obviously didn't think their model was beach ready either, given they felt the need to Photoshop the crap out of her picture.

I don't deny they'd help.....but that product is clearly not aimed at someone whose size 18 looking to shit a few pounds for her holiday. The marketing also implies that if you don't look like the model you're not "Beach Ready" which is bollocks.

"Are you beach body ready" next to "the weight loss collection" including "the slender blend"

The main issue for me is the product they've chosen rather than the "Beach body ready" thing. That slogan next to "The slender blend" is an unmistakeable message. Positive advertising for women to encourage lifestyle change can be done and done well ref: "This Girl Can" the as and the subsequent response by the company are totally unacceptable.

We don't have a written constitution. We have the Common Law and then a bunch of precedents and Case Law judgements.

I'm with the "faux outraged" women on this one. Even at 4 years old my eldest daughter is aware that to be "pretty" you have to be "skinny" (not my doing at all BTW) so anything that encourages a more positive body image or gives the impression that "meal replacement supplements" are not a healthy alternative to portion control and exercise get my vote. Good on them and from his comments in the press the CEO sounds like a gigantic arsehole.

Ignoring the "Hi/Hello/Hiya" is office code to brace for the incoming subtle/casual bollocking