But seriously, William:

If I had been as fortunate as you and gone to university perhaps I would have got this “concept of genuine democracy” that you say is beyond my ken. Please give me the benefit of your education: what I am failing to understand?

I’m not so much opposed of paying ‘too much due to inefficiency’ but I am more worried about inovation being drowned in the public sector malaise, i worked too long in the civil service to be willing to accept that level of management again.

I do have an idea ‘Poor Power’ if you are signing on, you can sign up to them and you get your power at Social security rates(backwards rebates or some such thing) this will keep lots of people in work due to the nature of the civil service and it will keep our grannies warm.

The British system needs reformed and I think the powers that be are using Holyrood, Cardiff and Stormont as experiments to see what works and what does’nt, so when there is a reformation at west minster, it will go quite well

Axel, two things. The water regulator is recommending that the market be opened up like the gas and electric has and the Scottish Office, with it’s Scottish Minister elected in Scotland, runs Scottish elections.

let me think

oki, you me and wonko, could all be with scottish power for our gas and spark, we all pay them but, the actual power will come from our local plant, my power will be from a scottish power plant, wonkos will be from a midlands power plant and yours will be from a charlie land plant, If we get pissed off, we can all send our money else where, to a different company and they wil get the profits, however, our electricity will still be generated at the same plants, so each power company needs to keep us as customers sweet to continue getting our money, Market forces blah blah

Water is purely local, your choice is take it or leave it, the only people who provide it are the local company, that is an utter monopoly and because of that there is no incentive to provide a worthwhile service. Pathetic fines from the regulator, that are slow in appearing and do not reflect well the company turnover and thus do not affect the share holders, that needs fixed.

Your second point, i still think we in the provinces are being experimented upon to find out what the best ‘new’ system for eloctoral reform is.

What you say about party funding is true, labour would have been enriched by winning a landslide, but consider that they got only 1/4 votes in the last general election yet still ended up with a majority of seats! If seats had reflected votes they would have had to share power or else let a tory/liberal coaltion form a government.

So, in 97, labour would have got tons of money allowing them to publicise things more effectively than the tories, thus maintaing their grip on power.

And next year, the tories will be getting the wheel barrows full of money and labour will have to send Gordo home by hitch hiking because they cant afford even a bus fare!

Does this system not reward success with more success and a stronger ability to maintain it?

I’m in favour of privatising somethings but not others, if it can be run successfully on its own and make a profit, it should be privatised, if it cant, it needs to be run by the government.

I think the power companies can be privatised because they make a profit, so are successfull from a financial point of view. Also because there is market freedom, you can have several competing suppliers and that will allow developement, that is good.

Police, there are too many problems in the criminal justice system, to be able to address it by just dealing with the police.

Water, I think water should be publically owned, as it is one network and one supplier locally, there is no consumer choice, i think the shoddy private service reflects this, there is no need to compete, so the companies wont bother.

I would ‘re publicise’ (is that the word?) the royal mail

I’ve told you before I support the citizens’ initiative to allow voters to trigger referenda, that I support electoral reform to ensure that share of vote reflects share of seats, and have said that public party funding should be paid at the constituency level. How is this not countenancing real democracy?

Oh yeah, being posh isn’t based on toilet paper, it’s whether or not you get out of the bath to take a piss.

State funding of political parties is just another recipe for corruption. We need to militate against political parties, but I realise, Charlie Marks, that you are a party apparatchik through and through and could not countenance real democracy.

Axel I was not talking about votes in parliament, but votes at election time cast by constituents. So a pound say goes to the party you voted for. This is the least-worst option for party funding.

As for the picture, I’m a socialist, favouring in the words of Mr Webb and the old Clause Four: “the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service”.

As for state monopolies – hardly a woolly idea when you think of how lower our utility bills would be… But since you are obviously not a woolly type, Axel, I imagine you are in favour of privatising Royal Mail, the police, fire and rescue, and the armed forces?

Your hand?

Luxury, bloody luxury, when i were a lad all we were alloed to wipe our arses with were Angle grinders!