...the east shore of Greasy Bear River in their new tri-motor skiff and headed for the opposite shore. At the same moment, the Davenport brothers left the west shore of the river in their racing shell and headed towards the opposite... Would it be 640ft, SOD'EM..?

I rather like the way this thread perfectly sums up UK political discussion. It starts out with a premise for debate, descends into a minor rant about our unelected prime minister and finishes with a booze up.

Stun gun

It's really quite simple when you're dealing with multiple threads in multiple tabs on an iPhone, but as you say, really not that important. After all, today is confuse-a-Fred-thread day...

Ignore it. I was making a post elsewhere from my iPhone which isn't noted as the best device to handle multiple tabs open simultaneously. It ended up posting into your thread, and I've now removed it. Carry on.

Dozens would seem to be the obvious answer.

Who said we're inviting you? We have an enormously varied population in terms of age, ethnicity and language, near-endless celebrations of art and literature (most of them free) throughout the year and we're home to multiple grassroots organisations and activism groups. I just don't think you'd really fit in here... ;-) A vote for a non-mainstream party because you believe in their local policies, and, indeed, support the idea that those policies should ultimately go on to shape national legislation isn't a wasted vote, of course; unless you're policially conditioned to the point of believing the Labourservatives can only ever be the front-runners. I seem to recall sort of support for seemingly radical ideas around the turn of the twentieth century that it was thought would never be taken seriously or end up shape national legislation.. In more seriousness, it comes back to my earlier point that voting for local rather than national candidates, and on local rather than national issues, is not only a valid use of a vote but, perhaps, more politically relevant than casting your vote aimlesly into the void without really following or believing in any of the carbon-copy policies being wheeled out by the major parties. Oh dear indeed, but then all local authorities have that to a degree. Even a superficial degree of digging into Brighton Council shows they're not quite as squeaky clean as they'd like to suggest. Outright corrupt, might be another term you could employ.

For whom will you be voting, just out of interest? Mainstream or Minority?

On the latter point, As I said, my constituency returns a member of parliament, and, if current polls are anything to go by, the burrough is overwhelmingly voting Green, which will mean a Green representative in the House of Commons. As to whether the Greens will win this General Election, the answer is obviously no. However, my vote is still going to them due not only to their campaign policies and their specific relevance to where and how I live, but also on their past record which - taken on its own merits - has been excellent, and - taken in comparison to other parties - exemplary. But does this form of voting remove your right to complain when the Labourservatives win the election? Of course not. But then is voting for a party you know full well stands, at least for the time being, no hope of mainstream success any less of a wasted vote than not voting at all?

...and Europe has foisted restrictive laws upon honest, upstanding, White Britons, we've heard it all before. On a more serious side, I'm extremely gratified to see the thread has generated such an emotive and intelligent response from others, which is precisely why I started it. Now let's change track here for a moment and assume Uncle Tez has been playing Devil's Advocate to generate debate. Let's now assume that I do vote, and have done since I left home, but that in this election I am choosing to use my vote on local rather than national issues. For example, my constituency here in Brighton is known as Brighton Pavillion. It returns one MP and the current runners for this year are Independent, UKIP, Socialist Labour, Green, Liberal Democract, Conservative and Citizens for the Undead Rights and Equality (no, this last one is not a joke). My vote will be going to the Caroline Lucas, the Green candidate. This decision carries no expectation of a Green win at a national level; rather, it is a clear support of Dr Lucas' policies at a local level, and specifically where the rights of the LGBT electorate are concerned. It is partly a desire to see a Green MP in the Commons, but let's leave that to one side for the moment and concentrate purely on the local level. Now the same question applies. I am voting Green on local issues and for local reasons. I am not voting Conservative because I wish to see them win, and neither am I voting Labour to keep the Conservatives out of power. Despite this, you could argue that my decision to vote locally is a wasted vote nationally, since the party Dr Lucas represents stands, let's be honest here, absolutely no chance of getting into power. Would this also remove the right of somebody to complain about a particular aspect of their society under the heel of an alternative government? And before answering, remember that I am voting Green to total expectation of a Tory and/or Labour win. I'd be interested to hear your responses...

Given the current climate, I thought I'd wheel this one out to see what other people think. Firstly, I should say that I do not vote. I am not apathetic about voting; my decision is a distinct, clear choice to make my political stance by wilfull non-participation in the electoral system of this country, which is rather different from choosing not to vote because I don't feel any of the choices are relevant to me. I've heard people whinge that that stance gives you no right to complain (and by extension, comment at all) on the society in which we live. I believe this statement to be in error. I shall go further, I believe those who spout it are often politically ignorant and socially naive. I work for a living. I work very hard and long hours and I am rewarded for my labour. Part of that reward is of course ploughed back into the society in which I live in the form of various taxes. I am thus both a contributer to - and consumer in - this society, and it is that which dicates I have every right to complain about the system if I feel it necessary to do so, since I contribute in every way that I believe relevant to our society. Now, there is of course an argument to be made for ballot spoling, but I think this rather misses the point. Ballot spoiling, whilst a perfectly commendable political act, is in itself a validation of our electoral system, and, consequently, not really any different from turning up and the booth and putting an X on a random person. If the electoral system were changed, let's say to porportional representation, then I might be more inclined to vote, but for the moment the chances of my scrawling an X on a ballot sheet are slightly less than zero. So, what do other CAGers feel about this? And are there any others who choose not to vote, and, if so, why? Remember, there is no right or wrong answer to this one, I'm just curious to hear other people's thoughts and ideas (especially if those ideas are to support a total rejection of our political system and my own ascension to dictator).

Alternate Link

Oh, Tim Minchin how I love thee... *Warning* If you are previously unaccustomed to the work of Tim Minchin, or are a Papist whose faith is so weak it can't withstand a little cutting satire, it's probably best you don't click this link.

Gas Tank

Because that strategy has worked flawlessly for humanity thus far...

"Gotcha" perhaps? You can't get much shorter than a single word, and I personally feel that word sums up all that needs to be said about marriage...

It seems to be a curiously English attitude as well. Suspicion, and by extension fear, of mental health issues plagues all nations to one degree or another, but the English - especially compared with our trans-Atalantic cousins - seem to be especially afflicted; a kind of 'keep it behind closed doors', which is distinctly unhealthy for everyone. I suspect a lot of it is to do with social attitudes. There are of course flaws with the American system regarding mental health, but I think that the American national attitude towards the field has been enormously helped by a very open and sincere acceptance by Congress, starting really with Truman's National Mental Health Act in the mid forties, that such issues not only exist but are a serious blight on the health of a nation. The pervading attitude in the States seems generally that any mental health issues are likely to be taken seriously by the establishment, whilst the reverse seems to be the case in the UK which frequently leads to people - usually men - in not seeking the help they need for fear of being ridiculed.

Tooth Paste

To echo locutus, this seems a little odd. One of the chief uses for my home PC is as a central store - and player of - or my vast music collection, which I run through WinAmp 5.57. There were some problems in the early days (around version 3, IIRC), but since then I've always found WinAmp one of the most stable, most versatile software packages, and the resources it consumes are fairly small. If you are having instability issues, I'd be more curious to learn exactly what they are and exactly how they manifest themselves, as my techy-gut-reaction is this is more likely a problem with the underlying system and/or codecs than it is with WinAmp. Plus WinAmp has some especially good newer features, such as the free WinAmp Remote service. I use this frequently, as it allows me to access my entire music collection from any internet-capable device in the world and to stream it live through that device's speakers; no need to copy the tracks you think you'll need and take them with you, or worry about storage space. If you absolutely set on ditching WinAmp, you could try WinAmp Lite, which has less features but might run better for you, or the next best thing in terms of simplicity of use is the often much maligned Windows Media Player. Sure, it used to be something of a joke, but version 9 onwards really do perform quite well, are simple to use, and are already installed on almost all Windows systems already.

Over Fishing

Note that this flaw specifically affected XP systems, and has subsequently been patched, but the fact remains that there's no need to renew the likes of McAfee or Norton when there are free alternatives of superior quality and that have less of a negative impact on your system. For free anti-virus systems, you can go with either Avast or AVG. My own recommendation would be Avast, as I find it a little more efficient and robust than AVG, but both are excellent. Don't forget that by using a free anti-virus system, you may need to sort out a separate firewall as well. Again, there are plenty of free versions, of which ZoneLabs' ZoneAlarm is amongst the better and easier to use.

Captain Cook

Oops...

Dead End