Me too Onthebeach, but then Labour always tend to do better in local elections than they do in a general so not getting too excited at the gains they've made. Still up only 3 points on 2008 and if anything Labour should be concerned that they only managed 39% of the vote even with the help of PR disasters like the last budget. Milliband should be worried that he's not been able to turn recent criticism of the alliance into anything more substantial than that, probably because no matter what he says and does he just doesn't look like a credible future PM to most people.
Nick Clegg must be worried. He's staked the entire future of his party on the gamble that economic recovery will kick in just in time for the next general election, hopefully allowing him to take credit for restraining the worst inclinations of the Tory right and yet still managing to deliver an upturn. Not looking good for him that one. Voters don't seem convinced anyways, the LibDems losing a full third of their 2008 share. Gonna find it hard to leave that whole betrayal thing behind him without some serious good news to vindicate his support for the Tories. I can see them being good as wiped out as a party at the next election at this rate. Probably deserve to be.
A sorry tale indeed Flower. On the plus side if things really do come in threes you've got the bad luck out of the way now and should be due a good run. Maybe not so good your woeful attempt at garnering a sympathy shag will actually work, obviously, but better than endocarditis at least. ;)
Welsh Assembly overturn previous decision to introduce culling:
Interesting that one of the reasons given is that a cull would be open to a legal challenge under the Animal Health Act 1981, I think on the grounds that as per Section 21 of the Act the Govt have to demonstrate that a cull is necessary in order to 'eliminate, or substantially reduce' incidence of TB in cattle. I think the Wesh Assembly might be right on that now that there's a licensed vaccine available that could be said to make a cull unnecessary, and right to be concerned that even if no vaccine was available a cull would quite probably fail the 'eliminate, or substantially reduce' test. Gonna be interesting to see if this leads to further developments on the plans for a cull in England.
No Star. I don't think anyone's suggesting Churches should be forced to marry a same sex couple. Churches have their own requirements for people wanting the religious ceremony, the Catholic Church refusing marriage to divorcees or some orthodox Rabbis refusing to marry Jew to gentile for instance and they're quite within their rights to do that. We're talking marriage as a civil contract conferring a certain legal status and certain rights and responsibilities on those who enter into it, not marriage as a religious ceremony. The two things are completely distinct, a religious ceremony being nothing but a ceremony prior to the registration of the civil contract at which point your actual marriage takes place.
Section 202 of the Equality Act already makes provision for civil partnerships on religious premises and is clear that that's opt-in, entirely voluntary, no compulsion on religious institutions whatsoever to offer registration of civil partnerships. That permissive aspect will probably be retained in any legislation making same-sex marriages legal. It's possible there could be a legal challenge to that at some point, and possible a European directive will trump UK law, but a similar legal challenge could I think be made to the existing legislation on civil partnership registration on religious premises but as yet noone seems to think there's an issue there, and no suggestion that any institutions so far have been compelled to offer civil partnerships against their own wishes.
The Church has no say in this. Not the Catholic Church, not the C of E, not Jews or Muslims, not any one other of the religious institutions recognised in this country, because marriage is not ordained by God. Partly cos God doesn't exist, no matter what you imagine He / She / It to be, so has no say whatsoever in the laws of a secular democracy, but mainly because marriage is not a religious institution in the first place.
Marriage is licensed and supervised by The State, not The Church, because The State knows full well that there are huge social and economic advantages in doing so . . . so it reciprocates, and confers advantages on those who opt into it. Marriage is not a religious institution, it is a social contract that in all probability pre-dates any single one of the organised religious institutions out there. It's a two-way street between citizen and state that's designed to be mutually advantageous.
If The State recognises the social good of marriage enough to confer those advantages on some, The State, being an equal opportunity, impartial arbiter who's role according to the libertarian definition is to moderate competing interests in a democracy, has to confer those advantages on ALL those who opt for marriage, otherwise they are creating an inequality, which is something they cannot forever tolerate because equality under the law is meant to be guaranteed, if not by what passes for a Constitution in this country but by Treaties we have signed.
I was referring to recent practice where banks have been unwilling to lend anything near asking price, 20% deposits being quite typical because they've had their fingers burned once already with the most recent 'correction' and know prices are still over-inflated. That's what the scheme's trying to address: their reluctance to lend. The Govt guarantees up to 5.5% of a 95% mortgage, the building firm puts in 3.5%, making a 9% contribution, so the bank is effectively left with a liability amounting to 86% of the asking price in the event of a default. In practice the bank is stumping more than 86% of the money up front but its exposure is effectively the same as asking for a 14% deposit. ( Ok, some small improvement on them asking for 20% but lets not quibble. ;) ) I think that's how it works as I understand it.
The effect must be to keep prices inflated above their 'true' value to the house builder's benefit and theirs alone, when what should be happening is that prices for 'starter' homes come down to a level that more accurately reflects their value, making them more affordable for first-time buyers, making banks more willing to lend against them. For free-market advocates like the Tories to be propping up the inflated housing market with tax-payers' money don't seem all that free-market to me, and hardly in buyers best interests?
I've got no axe to grind with Amnesty International any which way Starlight. I ignored the link because it's completely irrelevant to the ridiculous false argument you made in your previous post where you expressed your support for the persecution of people solely for their beliefs, that's all.
Cat hairs between one's teeth or at the back of one's throat ( *coughs* ) aren't something I'd go out of me way for, but not sure bald pussies are a great look either?
would be good, and a useful way of finding your way in the dark?
Suffolk Broads and The Thames FFS? How much water do these southerners want? I might let Norfolk have a bit seeing as they're verging Midlands, but Suffolk can fook right off.
Anyways, they're having none of mine. I send all our rain westwards so we can get some sun and take the piss out of Mancunians.
Alright, can't say as I remember bringing up a butterfly or racing snails now I think on it, so maybe 47 / 50, but it's still a dirty trick. The canal and ponds just across the slag heaps by the pit were our playground and we'd spend whole days down there adventuring around. It's all been landscaped now and turned into a 'country park' type thing, and I can't remember the last time I saw any kids playing down there. Maybe making it safe has taken all the fun out of it, who knows? Sad.
