« Previous | Main | Next »

You wait weeks for a David Milliband

Eddie Mair | 14:57 UK time, Monday, 30 October 2006

interview then two come along at once. He was with us on Wednesday and look, he's with us again tonight. He'll be on his feet in the Commons shortly, explaining Government thinking on the environment. He'll be talking to me about an hour later. What do you think of the Stern report and related issues? On the comments thread below (under "After") there's already quite a debate.

Also on the programme tonight, a Green of many years standing recalls the movement's last high watermark in 1989. What lessons can be learned from then. And we'll hear a sceptical voice - a professor who thinks Mr Milliband is just plain wrong.

Plus, the Michael Jackson comeback, flag-burning, and a debate about when teenagers should be legally able to do certain things. As I used to say in the Newsletter from time to time, some of these things may not happen, so please don't be devastated if this little trail excites your interest in an item, you cancel your plans to listen to the whole show, and then the item doesn't run. Listen for the name of the editor just before the bongs and write to him.

Comments

  1. At 03:19 PM on 30 Oct 2006, jonnie wrote:

    I gather CE is away for a couple of weeks. I'll try his stand in this evening and switch over for the bongs ;-)

  2. At 03:26 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    “you cancel your plans to listen to the whole show”

    I hope you realise that the reads as the opposite to what I think you mean. But then perhaps my brain is understanding it backwards.

  3. At 03:26 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Tut tut, jnnie! That's not the attitude.... Mind you, we haven't had Joe P around today, have we. This may be the proof that he and CE ar one and the same!

  4. At 03:32 PM on 30 Oct 2006, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    I much prefer a Stern report to a Genial report myself.

    On the flag-burning topic, this seems mad. A ban on burning books would be sensible, I remember someone once saying that once people get used to burning books, burning people doesn't seem like a great leap, but flags? No.

    It means nothing to me, it's just a piece of cloth. If you start putting a symbol like that on a pedestal, well... I'm not very articulate today, but I just think it's a *really* bad idea.

  5. At 03:44 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Mrs Trellis wrote:

    That will be a first "Govennment thinking"

  6. At 03:45 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Joe Palooka wrote:

    Freddy,

    I'm here, ok?

  7. At 03:46 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Ooh Ooh Everyone! You remember the link I posted a couple of times for the fizzy drink/mint experiment? Well, they've posted a new video! Click HERE to see the new video :-)

  8. At 03:48 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Piper wrote:

    ...Eddie, far be it from me to protest. But...

    In this Blog-Header, you've put forward the phrase "Government thinking..."

    The implication projected by those words is both misleading and quite clearly an outrageous falsehood.

    Sounds to me like Rupert could've written the script... you really should watch him more closely...

    After all, people might start thinking you "paid" for your forthcoming social elevation by using such wording... And where could that lead, one wonders..?

  9. At 03:50 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Deepthought (formerly John W) wrote:

    Mrs Trellis (5)

    :-)

  10. At 04:03 PM on 30 Oct 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Re: Fearless (3)

    No you're right, I'll listen to Eddie talking about Sir Nicholas's report.

    The thing that annoys me is that he isn't actually telling us anything new but seems to have achieved press hysteria today. Anyone of us froggers who watched the Climate change documentaries on BBC Four in the spring will or should be aware anyway.

    And Piper : From a previous thread said we should 'tell the politicians'

    Mmmmm ! right!

  11. At 04:06 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    What's this about Eddie's "forthcoming social elevation"? Have I missed something somewhere?

  12. At 04:21 PM on 30 Oct 2006, jonnie wrote:

    I bet Joe Palooka did'nt get his Newsletter today Ha Ha Ha! but CE seemed very upbeat on his last post :-


    What can I say, what can I do, how can I tell you how much I love you?
    It’s a song, as I’m sure you know, (Walking Back to Happiness) but also a heartfelt thank you.
    The figures are up, the pressures off, so full steam ahead, we ai’nt seen nothing yet…

    ---------------------------------------

    At least Nurse Quinn always keeps the blog rolling when Eddie isn't around

  13. At 04:49 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Peter Wharton wrote:

    The whole world has to take action to stop global warming. The British Govt should not use this issue to justify raising more money from highly direct and indirect taxed people.
    How much global warming has been caused by government national and international policies?

  14. At 04:50 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Piper wrote:

    ...Big Sister (11) Ssh... I understand from "Deep-Croak" that platform soles are coming back and as Eddie, apparently, is partial to the fashion...

    Watch this space...

  15. At 05:26 PM on 30 Oct 2006, David Ford wrote:

    Why has it taken so long? In the Green Party we were talking about the need for action on climate change a quarter of a century ago. At the time the media, politicians in the major parties and the public at large thought we were soft in the head and scaremongering. Ah well, good to have you on board.
    David Ford

  16. At 05:28 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Fifi wrote:

    Mrs Trellis (5)
    Piper (8)
    Deep Thought (9)

    Are there any more topical oxymorons* out there? Let's see...

    o Government thinking
    o Military intelligence

    ...erm.....?

    * For those not quite as obsessed with words as I am, an oxymoron is a 2-word phrase, where one word means the opposite of the other.

  17. At 05:30 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Waggers wrote:

    Does PM think that balance means dragging some maverick wierdo out of the the woods (usually in the US outback) to challenge climate change....you don't have to and it really is misleading. Many lay people still think it is contentious because there is always this debate in the mainstream media. Scientists don't contend the priniciple - only timescales and long term effects. Please catch up and get the debate onto what we can do.

  18. At 05:35 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Bernard Burns wrote:

    Why do you give so much time to marginal climate sceptics? If they had serious science they'd publish it for the review of their peers, but none have.

    An analysis published in Science Magazine, 3 Dec 2004, by Naomi Oreskes, of 928 peer reviewed papers on global climate change found 75% supporting the consensus that human activities are causing climate change, 25% not giving a view (they were about other aspects) but none dissenting.

  19. At 05:37 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Oh you are stressing me out today guys. I refer you to my post on the previous thread. Definitley off to the beach now.

    If Eddie's wearing his platforms when I get there I won't mind, so long as he has his best Speedoes on too.

  20. At 05:49 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Colin Mather wrote:

    All the informed people accept that conservation is a basic requirement BUT the government does not encourage it directly themselves. They offer inducements to energy suppliers to give subsidies which results in a complicated minefield of all the companies giving different subsidies on different timetables. This barrier prevents people from perservering with installing insulation which would give effective reductions in emmissions immediately.

  21. At 05:52 PM on 30 Oct 2006, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Blimey!

    "Wearing balaclavas" is unacceptable...
    "Why would anyone wear a balaclava?"

    Goodbye Metropolitan Police, hello Fashion Police.

    What's next? Flares? Anoraks?

  22. At 05:53 PM on 30 Oct 2006, andy baldock wrote:

    There is a scheme for a severn river barrage that would produce as much tidal generated electricity as three nuclear power stations. See www.dti.gov.uk/files/file31329.pdf.

  23. At 05:54 PM on 30 Oct 2006, David Walker wrote:

    Why Fred Singer is wrong. Read

    http://www.dawalker.staff.shef.ac.uk/books/gccpt.pdf

  24. At 05:55 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Phil Thompson wrote:

    Why did the Copenhagen Consensus conclude that climate change was, in essence, not worth bothering about economically and yet one man commissioned by Gordon "och, we're doomed" Brown conclude that it was a good idea and that (quelle surprise) more taxation would be the way to do it.

    The broad church of Copenhagen believed that the cost of responding to climate change was huge and out of proportion to the benefit when compared with other projects like fighting AIDS, health, sanitation, education etc.

  25. At 05:55 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Piper wrote:

    David (15) good to have YOU aboard. jonnie (10) yes, we do need to tell politicians. Apathy has got everyone where they are today and, the location ain't good!

    Most of us are guilty.

    David's correct. 25 years. Frightening! As an outsider, with no UK political interest, I find it laughable that both Labour and Conservatives are now pretending to have fully-accredited Green credentials.

    jonnie, wherever we are, let's vote to survive...

  26. At 05:55 PM on 30 Oct 2006, andy baldock wrote:

    There is a scheme for a severn river barrage that would produce as much tidal generated electricity as three nuclear power stations. See www.dti.gov.uk/files/file31329.pdf.

  27. At 05:56 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Bij wrote:

    If the Government is serious about climate change they should make public transport cheaper than private cars. On mile by mile basis the latter is by far cheaper in the UK.

  28. At 05:56 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Piper wrote:

    David (15) good to have YOU aboard. jonnie (10) yes, we do need to tell politicians. Apathy has got everyone where they are today and, the location ain't good!

    Most of us are guilty.

    David's correct. 25 years. Frightening! As an outsider, with no UK political interest, I find it laughable that both Labour and Conservatives are now pretending to have fully-accredited Green credentials. And in my own country, the US... don't even get me started..!

    jonnie, wherever we are, let's vote to survive...

  29. At 05:58 PM on 30 Oct 2006, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Blimey!

    "Wearing balaclavas" is unacceptable...
    "Why would anyone wear a balaclava?"

    Goodbye Metropolitan Police, hello Fashion Police.

    What's next? Flares? Anoraks?

    More seriously, I hope this chap is also saying that wearing veils is "unacceptable" at protests. Same for big hats, scarves and clothing which covers identifiable birthmarks.

    Actually, that's probably a good idea: only give permission for nude protests. everyone can be identified easily, they'll fall off in the winter months...

    (Oo-er!)

  30. At 06:07 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Piper wrote:

    (16) Fifi... well, I'm out here and I certainly meet the "...moron" requirement.

  31. At 06:10 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Mike Bowles wrote:

    I was interested to hear the various debates today following the Stern report.
    Sure, you can charge motorists with non-eco friendly cars more for road tax, fuel or whatever. The trouble as I see it is that most of the eco-unfriendly cars are by definition expensive and simply putting a premium on road tax is not going to make a jot of difference in the majority of cases to the owners. Indeed, you could charge £1000 per year road tax and I am sure that it would make no difference to the choice made by the owner of the 2006 Range Rover costing £80K or whatever the price is.
    If we are seriously worried about the anti social effects of gas guzzling cars then we shoiuld take action to ensure that such cars are banned! Set a 5 year progranmme for instance and gradually phase out all such vehicles and only allow eco-friendly vehicles to be on our roads. It may not be a vote winning idea but it is probably a far more effective way to cut down on emissions than merely to charge a premium on offending cars.

  32. At 06:10 PM on 30 Oct 2006, luc wrote:

    Aaargh .... a new '2 Davids' in British politics!

    Will they merge?
    Will one David break away and form a Miniband?

    The future of the planet is at stake!

  33. At 06:14 PM on 30 Oct 2006, O M MIddleton wrote:

    Climate change:
    How many of us read our fortunes in the stars? And who lives the following week by what they are told in that daily or weekly column? Who believes in fortune tellers? Probably too many of us!

    Is the government playing the same doubtful prediction game? It wouldn't surprise me. I save energy but I don't think that will save the planet - the earth will surely continue to spin on its own way regardless.

  34. At 06:14 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Piper wrote:

    ...andy (20) you're right. And, if memory serves, that scheme, in its' initial form was suggested and reported in The Sunday Times around 1980...

    Of course, technology's changed, been invented etc, but progress is a wonderful thing...

  35. At 06:16 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Aunt Dahlia wrote:

    Personally I rather warm to the idea of green taxis, so much easier to spot than those dull black ones. As to the rest - rhetoric, lets see some action chaps.
    Otherwise we really have done for this little blue planet, we may be the only frogs left......

  36. At 06:18 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Piper wrote:

    (20) Stainless Steel Cat... Platforms..?

  37. At 06:20 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Jonathan Schofield wrote:

    My impression of the scientific consensus is that anything over 2 degrees warming will give a high risk of dangerous runaway climate change. Stern acknowledges this, and he also acknowledges that the most likely outcome of keeping CO2 equivalent to 450ppm is a 2 degree rise in temperature. So far so good. Then he says don't worry, we can achieve stabilisation at 550ppm, and it's affordable. His diagram shows that this is most likely to result in 3 degrees of warming.

    I was looking forward to hearing this obvious discrepancy discussed on PM, but instead I hear an interview with an infamous climate change denier. I was completely gobsmacked.

  38. At 06:22 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Aunt Dahlia wrote:

    Personally I rather warm to the idea of green taxis, so much easier to spot than those dull black ones. As to the rest - rhetoric, lets see some action chaps.
    Otherwise we really have done for this little blue planet, we may be the only frogs left......
    Incidentally, why are stic flicker telling me there are no such photos - when they are there. Is this some subtle philosophical experiment. Are we mice, not frogs.....

  39. At 06:23 PM on 30 Oct 2006, R Martel wrote:

    Waggers - I disagree.

    PM should be congratulated for giving airtime to Dr Fred Singer.

    I'm also a climate change skeptic - a dangerous thing to admit to these days.

    Today’s announcement by Tony Blair (et al) shows - if any further proof were needed - that the global warming theory has now entered the dangerous realm of conventional wisdom.

    The theory is rarely challenged these days. So thank you PM for giving the other side a brief chance to have their say.

  40. At 06:27 PM on 30 Oct 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    Great thanks Fearless, it quite cheered me up (as usual!), let's hear it for eepybird.

  41. At 06:27 PM on 30 Oct 2006, John Bowen wrote:

    So once again we are to suffer from increased taxes, in a vain attempt to save the world by a reduction in our minute 2% of carbon use. Meanwhile America continues to consume 25% of the worlds assets.

    Then it is suggested that we send more billions to the Swiss bank accounts of African dictators, in the hope that it will help the starving millions. There is more than enough wealth in the natural resources of
    the continent to solve their problems, if did not go straight into the coffers of the corrupt.

  42. At 06:34 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Fifi wrote:

    Kitty (28)

    To ban the burning of flags is un-British.

    It would be much more our style to ban our own flag.

    (I'm being ironic ... did you all spot that?)

    2nd GRRRRRRRR of the day!

  43. At 06:46 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Gerald Rosenberg wrote:

    Please can we have less unctious and uncritical interviews with Professors. Does PM know how Professors are created? You get funding from industry or government for a research programme, and this creates a 'Chair' in whatever. Then the research centre then forms and publishes its work.

    Prof must be challenged as vigorously as any other commentator - undue deference does not further debate. When the next opportunity affords itself, please could you ask the climate change sceptics to comment on the rate of change in climate (or average global temperature), and whether this has precedent. Please also then ask about the impacts in lesser developed countries, and what this might mean for subsistence living.

    Am looking forward to some answers

  44. At 06:50 PM on 30 Oct 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Re: Piper,

    Are you the Ian Piper that is helping Eddie retire on 13 Million ??

  45. At 07:07 PM on 30 Oct 2006, teenereener wrote:

    a quick note.

    20 years ago we were concerned with a general cool down. now we are extremely concerned with a heat up. there is not unanimity or anything close to 99.5% as stated by milliband. more and more people are questioning the whole notion of global warming - read this website http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

    second, no one who is intelligent considers what gore says to be truth. remember he's the one who invented the internet? i agree with dr singer the 2nd guest on the show.

    more study should be done on the matter using 'global' measurements rather than variations in local weather. what about all the places where it is getting colder on the earth? or where colder than normal temperatures occur? http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061013/D8KNNNOO1.html

    at least equal time was given to both sides of the debate.

  46. At 07:28 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Rosalind wrote:

    I can't understand why people are so easy about the issue of climate change. We have been clinging to the edges of a small planet for however many years, I doubt if we have much longer to go now. What worries me is that climate change is not a linear progresson. Things compound, and I worry even more that we are past the possible renewal stage.

    I shall be surprised if we get further than the next 10 years before we see how incredibly stupid our species is. Problem is, we drag all the other species down with us.

    Short term here is the enemy of the long term, and how!! We do desperately need a whole planet strategy.

  47. At 08:17 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Sen wrote:

    We should be very carefull when talking about climate change as we dont seem to be giving much attention to what is happening in the east i.e. china, india. I feel climate change is not only due airborne pollution but also pollution of water and clearing of forest have a major impact.

    Having said that I personally feel that the tipping point being in next 5 , 10 , 15 years is nonsense and it is simply being alarmist.

  48. At 08:58 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Gerald Rosenberg wrote:

    One further point on PM's Prof Singer! The SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROJECT web site sources lots of articles, seminars and pamphlets, but no refereed journals. Why not? The benchmark for any academic worth their salt is refereed journals. Perhaps PM could put this point to Prof Singer.

  49. At 09:06 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Piper wrote:

    Rosalind (46) ...as best anyone I know of can tell, I'd unfortunately have to say, you've scored a-hole-in-one...

  50. At 09:09 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Piper wrote:

    jonnie (44) ...I can't even retire to the bathroom let alone help others...

  51. At 09:53 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Piper (49), LOL.

  52. At 11:39 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    I’m going to make an acute observation. But before that:

  53. At 11:43 PM on 30 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    PM
    “Sometimes leads to acute observations, but I’ve forgotten mine”

  54. At 01:23 AM on 31 Oct 2006, Roberto Carlos Alvarez-Galloso,CPUR wrote:

    Please, no Michael Jackson comeback. Thanks.

  55. At 08:20 AM on 31 Oct 2006, frank pike wrote:

    Burning Flags! Think about the environment, if it doesent need burning, dont burn it.

  56. At 09:28 AM on 31 Oct 2006, chrissie the trekkie wrote:

    re :47:Sen....

    Got that right. Who's going to be the World Environmental Police to stop the growing population cutting down the rain forest for housing and farming? There's a lot more to this than banning short-haul flights and closing airports and hiking petrol prices.

    Maybe if OPEC would shut down production for a fortnight and give us a taste of when the oil runs out, then suddenly all those extra techologies of electricity from burning waste, and solar panels on every roof regardless of heritage designation might appear. Plus more employers thinking about having their business where their workers can actually afford to live, instead of inside, say, London, and us poor slobs having to do 30-50 mile commutes every day.

  57. At 10:13 AM on 31 Oct 2006, Mark Intime wrote:

    Global warming is too serious a subject to make a flippant comment so, with apologies to Fifi, it looks like Pat has triumphed after all. Fred, are you putting forward coke as an alternative power source? Isn't coke carbon based?

  58. At 11:32 AM on 31 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Afternoon all...

    Slightly more serious thread than before, I see. What's been intruiging is that some of the kneejerk reactions against the report yesterday seem to have not been fully thought out. For instance Teenereener (45), I looked at the first link in your post, and what I found was a review from one of the main contributors praising Al Gores' film, not vilifying it.

    As for your secong paragraph "gore created the internet", that is a trite soundbite I have heard many times from friends in the US. However, if you do the research, you will see that what he actually did was, as a congressman and as a senator, he fought for the funding to turn what was then Arpanet into what we are using now. His exact quote in the Wolf Blitzer interview was "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet". Does that mean he was the one writing the code? No. What he was doing is what anyone would do, i.e. take credit for securing the funding to allow the development of what is possibly one of the most significant developments in technology in the last fifteen years. So please, do not just trot out a mis-quote and not expect to be questioned on it...

    As for the need to take action on the environment, it's not just a case of combatting global warming. It also will create the benefits of a reducion in the use of natural resources, which also will allow the ecology of the orld to stabilise. In areas where man isnot present, nature settles to an equilibrium. Where man exists te environment is constantly changed by mans' actions. We have no way of knowing what log term effect this will have on the world. Surely the best course of action is to take a step bak, allow the world to stabilise into an equilibrium of which we're a part, then we can see how we can live in a world as a part of it, not just as users of it...

    Okay, rant over. Sorry about the coke video. I just thought it would be a fun aside on a serious day...

  59. At 11:33 AM on 31 Oct 2006, Hillman Hunter wrote:

    You wait weeks for a PM newsletter...

  60. At 11:57 AM on 31 Oct 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    ...have we discovered exactly why we can't get the aforementioned (59)? Thinking Allowed always gets through. Perhaps you could make it a Weekly edition Eddie?

  61. At 12:03 PM on 31 Oct 2006, Mark Intime wrote:

    Valery (60) should that be "weakly" edition?

  62. At 12:11 PM on 31 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Has anyone noticed a syringe containing a healthy dose of an obviously sought-after medication? I seem to have mislaid one or two.

  63. At 12:19 PM on 31 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Afternoon everyone. Whilst I am happy that we are having a serious thread or three lately I don't want to lose the levity, so I just popped in to say "collywobbles" in an ill-though-out attempt to lighten the mood, and I'm off now.

    btw, Fearless (58), nicely put.

    P.S. Remember to ignore the doorbell tonight unless you want to debate the morality of extortion with those too young understand, yet apparently old enough to indulge.

  64. At 12:29 PM on 31 Oct 2006, Rachel wrote:

    Valerie (60) - isn't the weekly edition of the PM newsletter called the BH newsletter (which, incidentally, still seems to arrive on time). Perhaps Paddy's bought a few more rounds for the techies than our Eric.

  65. At 12:33 PM on 31 Oct 2006, Fifi wrote:

    Aperitif (62)

    I so agree.

    I'm toying with an alternative tactic, inspired by a very short Billy Connolly sketch.

    When you answer the door, get in first with 'TRICK OR TREEEEEEAT!!!!' and stand with YOUR hand out.

    Unless you're the first call of the evening, they must have some goodies to give you.

    If they don't, hand them a piece of card with 'I am TREATING you with respect. Now go away and do some research on GUISING!'

    Bah. Humbug.

  66. At 12:36 PM on 31 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Well, Appy, if your colly wobbles, you should prop it against the wall so it won't fall over :-)

  67. At 01:04 PM on 31 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Something else I wrote is invisible. So I will try this:

    How many legs has a milliband?

  68. At 01:14 PM on 31 Oct 2006, OnTheLedge wrote:

    You wait weeks for a David Milliband

    You wait hours for an Eddie Mair

    Hey, Eddie, no blogging today?

  69. At 02:24 PM on 31 Oct 2006, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    Yet another "Panic now" report, providing the perfect excuse for more
    taxes.

    Cars the problem? They account for 6% of CO2 emissions. Pointless attacking them;

    their worst pollution occurs during traffic jams, most of which are caused by
    Highways Authorities. Curiously, Richmond want to charge people for NOT driving
    their cars! What an incentive to keep on driving.

    Electricity? Ah, we could do something there. How about having shops open 8 hours per day instead of 24? Street lights used to go off at 10 pm, before some eejits extended Bar opening hours.

    Stop chopping down trees - except where they are needed to produce 578-page
    reports on the environment, of course.

    (I just emailed this to the PM programme)

  70. At 03:00 PM on 31 Oct 2006, Deepthought wrote:

    Vyle (68),

    Richmond and the car barking plan, as I live there/here I've been banging on about that part from the moment I heard it on "Today". In fact any Controlled Parking Zone is a tax on not using the car, but their stated aim was to hit the tractors; not a chance if the drivers are stuck in traffic jams when the parking zone becomes active.

    I would not be happy, but at least feel it fair if every car registered to an address in the borough had to pay this tax. But as I pointed out in an email to the council, they wouldn't dare do that, it would loose them the next election.

  71. At 03:23 PM on 31 Oct 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    Guising, yes, when did that disappear?At least we had to do a party piece before we got our apple or 6d, (of course this goes back to the days when the pubs shut at 10 and they played the queen at the end of the pictures - scary or otherwise).

    The only good thing about living where we do (given talk of all the restrictions on movement due to lack of public transport) is that we don't have a doorbell, don't get guisers, and don't have to spend a small fortune buying in heavily merchandised rewards for the lost souls. Scrooge, moi?

  72. At 04:36 PM on 31 Oct 2006, Fifi wrote:

    Val P (70)

    Tell you what, why don't you come down to the beach and we'll all do a party piece? (Those who want to, anyway.)

    I'll bring the salsa, Mrs T already has some kettle chips, and there was talk of some rum punch...

    Bring back guising.....
    Bring back guising.....
    .....and the newsletter?

  73. At 11:28 PM on 31 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Fearless (65),

    Thank you, I have taken your advice. :-)

  74. At 05:45 PM on 07 Nov 2006, wilma miller wrote:

    Why doesn't everyone in this country give a pound toward the people hit by Fairpack(?) collapse. Couldn't we raise enough for them not to suffer like this.

  75. At 05:23 PM on 09 Apr 2007, Paul Goetzee wrote:

    Am I being too cynical or has the point already been made that the reason the sailors have been allowed to tell their stories Big Brother style is to drum up broad popular support for a war against Iran should the US order it?

  76. At 09:51 PM on 28 Apr 2007, supplyjmin wrote:

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.