NationStates Jolt Archive

I was wondering about what sort of political parties everybody would vote for here...I hope I have given enough choice!

I know that the majority of people will not have a political ideology set in stone, so please choose the one that suits you best. :D

I don't think you've put together a solid list here, especially since it misses several new archetypes that have existed in Europe for awhile but still haven't really popped up as individual parties in the United States, like Social Democrats.

Usually, my choices hover between socialist, liberal, and green. Depending on the particular party platform and/or leadership.

And by liberal, I mean actual liberals, not neoliberals. By socialist, I mean social-democrat. And by green, I mean an actual green party that offers more than an environmental platform, but rather governing policies that by and large respect the environment.

So yeah, it's a bit difficult to chose an option in the poll. Politics are not well described by simple labels.

I guess the libertarians suit me the best, though I'm probably going to vote Republican in the upcoming election. I may break party lines for Obama, though, I haven't decided yet.

EDIT: Unless you're talking about the UK

Well, if there was ever an actual popular socialist party in Britain that wasn't either:

1. Secretly Social Democratic

OR

2. Insane, and rabidly divided.

Then I'd vote for them. Basically, bring Old Labour back! :(

And by liberal, I mean actual liberals, not neoliberals.
lol, you realise that "neo"liberal views are actually the original meaning of the term.

Libertarian, but if it comes between Conservatives or Liberals, I'm all for the Conservatives. And yes, I know it's spelled wrong in my name.

I don't think you've put together a solid list here, especially since it misses several new archetypes that have existed in Europe for awhile but still haven't really popped up as individual parties in the United States, like Social Democrats.

I agree...I'm sorry I couldn't put more ideologies on but of course the maximum number of options are 10. :D

I'd normally vote for the party/candidate that is closest to my opinions -
I tend not to vote on an ideological basis (i.e my votes changes from election to election or referenda to referenda.)

Other. Realism.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA POLITICIANS VOTE FOR YOU!
okay....back to topic.
I'd go with socialist, social welfare and all that, hard to say who i'd vote for, oh i think there should be a "None of the above" option, then politicians would work harder to actually do as they say. But i'm not an expert on this sort of thing to be honest.

Usually, my choices hover between socialist, liberal, and green. Depending on the particular party platform and/or leadership.

And by liberal, I mean actual liberals, not neoliberals. By socialist, I mean social-democrat. And by green, I mean an actual green party that offers more than an environmental platform, but rather governing policies that by and large respect the environment.

So yeah, it's a bit difficult to chose an option in the poll. Politics are not well described by simple labels.

To answer the OP, I vote similarly to Skaladora, though I tend to vote exclusively with social-democrats

My vote for abolishment of political parties and of current parody of elections in all countries of the world.

I would be quite tempted, given the current topography of British politics, not to vote at all. Of all the current UK parties, I am perhaps closest to UKIP, but would have voted, and campaigned, for the Conservative party under Hague and Howard.

Normally I vote green but I can't really tell without you listing their positions and stuff like that, I normally don't base my vote on the name of the party.

I'd vote for a party that wants a well developed welfare state funded by high taxes but are libertarians on all other areas. I want a free people, a free market and free healtcare/education/etc. Not sure which label fits that best.

I think I have said this before but I would vote for Green however I wouldn't want them to win rather I want to see how the power affects them and what they act like before I allow any kinky chaining to the computer chair

so I want socialists who are terrified of having elections, nothing bad could happen there...

Last elections we had (local council), I voted Liberal and Green. I'd probably vote Green in a General Election, as they might have a half-decent chance of getting somewhere in my constituency, unless the illiterate Lib Dems round here nick votes with sop environmental policies.

I'd vote for a party that wants a well developed welfare state funded by high taxes but are libertarians on all other areas. I want a free people, a free market and free healtcare/education/etc. Not sure which label fits that best.
Deluded?

I'd vote for a party that wants a well developed welfare state funded by high taxes but are libertarians on all other areas. I want a free people, a free market and free healtcare/education/etc. Not sure which label fits that best.

Dystopian idealogue would seem pertinent.

Deluded?
Maybe I exaggerated and oversimplified quite a lot. My political views are a weird mix of options taken from very different labels and mixed together. I can't point out an overall direction I would like society to move in because I'm mostly happy with status quo and only want random minor changes on specific issues.

Dystopian idealogue would seem pertinent.
Would you prefer the opposite of what I mentioned, which would be: A society with low taxes, no welfare, plan economy and oppressive policies in all other areas?

Only one party exists that I know of that I would consistently vote for.

Israel's Kadima party. Kadima are centrists.

I am currently registered as an Independent.

COMMUNISM....ITS WHAT'S FOR DINNER ^^

Communism all the way

Socialist.

I don't vote for strict party line in any election, but if I were to, it would probably be more conservative.

I don't think you've put together a solid list here, especially since it misses several new archetypes that have existed in Europe for awhile but still haven't really popped up as individual parties in the United States, like Social Democrats.Also the difference between Libertarian and Liberal is similar to that between Nationalists and Fascists...

Only one party exists that I know of that I would consistently vote for.

Israel's Kadima party. Kadima are centrists.

I am currently registered as an Independent.More center right or right from an international perspective.

I don't vote for one party, I vote for three different ones in different levels of government. They are centrist-liberal (in the proper sense of the word, not the nonsensical one used in the USA), social-democratic and green. Why would I limit my choice to only one party?

Would you prefer the opposite of what I mentioned, which would be: A society with low taxes, no welfare, plan economy and oppressive policies in all other areas?

I would have a society with low taxes and a free market economy. High taxes and a free market economy are an anathema; a genuinely free market necessitates a fiscal policy in which the highest possible proportion of one's income is left untouched by the state. Where welfare is concerned, I would limit it to high state pensions, unemployment benefit for the able bodied for 3 months, and an incremental scale of unemployment benefit for those not of able bodied. Beyond that, I see little reason for the state to compensate for the ineptitude, apathy and fecklessness of others.

Beyond that, I see little reason for the state to compensate for the ineptitude, apathy and fecklessness of others.
Such as, say, breaking one's legs after being hit by a car, or getting a loan from the government to attend university?

Just clearing up whether or not you support an NHS or free/subsidised education.

I would have a society with low taxes and a free market economy. High taxes and a free market economy are an anathema; a genuinely free market necessitates a fiscal policy in which the highest possible proportion of one's income is left untouched by the state. Where welfare is concerned, I would limit it to high state pensions, unemployment benefit for the able bodied for 3 months, and an incremental scale of unemployment benefit for those not of able bodied. Beyond that, I see little reason for the state to compensate for the ineptitude, apathy and fecklessness of others.
Quite presumptious, considering there hasn't ever been a society without unemployment.

I don't vote for parties, I vote for people (or in some cases, against them).

Quite presumptious, considering there hasn't ever been a society without unemployment.

Hardly. There are always jobs available, if only employers were reminded of their social responsibilities, and the unemployed were given an imperative to work; either get a job, or get no money.

I'd be willing to throw my support behind the local left-wing party, but it is not nearly libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism) enough. For all its talk about "communities" and "decentralization," it still seems to have an unhealthy obsession with the capitalist welfare state. I'm certainly not wishing such abolished overnight, but some significant movement toward "communities" and "decentralization" would be nice.

In American Election, I'll be voting Libertarian. :)

I was wondering about what sort of political parties everybody would vote for here...I hope I have given enough choice!

I know that the majority of people will not have a political ideology set in stone, so please choose the one that suits you best. :D

I don't vote for political parties. In fact, all things being equal, I consider being afiliated with one to be a negative in a candidate, not a positive. Fortunately for them and unfortunately for me, it's a negative almost all of them share. :(

I'd vote for toga parties. :)

I assume when you ask 'what party would you vote for in an election?' you are not seriously, 'elections' in the bourgeois dictatorship can only yield one result, candidates who all will all want to system of bourgeois class rule to continue, that's the point of modern parliamentarian and congressional systems, to prevent the workers from having power and for the bourgeois to continue enforcing wage-slavery over them.

Elections in the bourgeois state can never yield progressive results for the people, the only way that can ever happen is if the bourgeois state is liquidated through violent revolution.

Hardly. There are always jobs available, if only employers were reminded of their social responsibilities, and the unemployed were given an imperative to work; either get a job, or get no money.
Social responsibilty of emplyers? Considering your last post, that really is full of delicious irony. Historically, we've always had unemployment. We tried 'lesser elegibility', making it as degrading and difficult to claim poor relief (i.e. unemployment benefits) way back in 1834, and surprise surprise, it didn't work. Regardless of the sticks and carrots involved, there are always people without a job, and are in every single country with a market capitalist economy.

Social responsibilty of emplyers? Considering your last post, that really is full of delicious irony. Historically, we've always had unemployment. We tried 'lesser elegibility', making it as degrading and difficult to claim poor relief (i.e. unemployment benefits) way back in 1834, and surprise surprise, it didn't work. Regardless of the sticks and carrots involved, there are always people without a job, and are in every single country with a market capitalist economy.

Unemployment has always existed; correct. However, I see little reason why this need be the case. If only New Labour had not deemed it worthwhile to overqualify an entire generation, the jobs available would also correspond to the qualifications, and abilities, of the workforce.

In any case, you cannot equate 1834 to 2008; the cultural axioms and pillars of society are radically different, whilst the prevailing demographic group is the middle, rather than lower, class. Poverty, poor education and deprivation are no longer endemic, a contingency which reduces the size of the genuinely unemployed in society to a quantity which can be prevailed upon to take a job, and be harrassed by an enlarged police force into doing so.

Social Democrats. http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/spd.gif

Any time, anywhere.

Names are pretty much meaningless these days.

I would have a society with low taxes and a free market economy. High taxes and a free market economy are an anathema; a genuinely free market necessitates a fiscal policy in which the highest possible proportion of one's income is left untouched by the state. Where welfare is concerned, I would limit it to high state pensions, unemployment benefit for the able bodied for 3 months, and an incremental scale of unemployment benefit for those not of able bodied. Beyond that, I see little reason for the state to compensate for the ineptitude, apathy and fecklessness of others.

Sure, let's leave as much of one's income untouched as possible by not taxing it to provide money toward educating the children of those too inept, apathetic and feckless to be able to provide the money for themselves. Of course, as soon as we stop providing education, the reason those children can't eventually pay for their children's education stops being because they are inept, apathetic and feckless and so the logic for that system ceases to exist.

Sure, let's leave as much of one's income untouched as possible by not taxing it to provide money toward educating the children of those too inept, apathetic and feckless to be able to provide the money for themselves. Of course, as soon as we stop providing education, the reason those children can't eventually pay for their children's education stops being because they are inept, apathetic and feckless and so the logic for that system ceases to exist.

Actually, and somewhat unsurprisingly, you are quite incorrect. Of the few concessions to significant investment in public services I would make, education is equal only to the Police Force.

Actually, and somewhat unsurprisingly, you are quite incorrect. Of the few concessions to significant investment in public services I would make, education is equal only to the Police Force.

And of course, this education will be utilised fully living in the desperate poverty caused by daddy's welfareless unemployment.

I'm a mix between Libertarianism/Nationalism/ and Conservatism.

I don't like how Nationalism and fascism are together, so I won't vote...

It's quite possible to have a free-market state, with high social, economic and political freedoms, while being a nationalist state, with a strong military, controlled immigration and enforced borders...

At the same time, it's possible to have a socialist state that is more along the lines of Fascism..where the government takes care of everything, controls the economy and makes sure it's citizens recieve "free" education, healthcare...welfare benefits...ect ect ect....

And of course, this education will be utilised fully living in the desperate poverty caused by daddy's welfareless unemployment.

Daddy's more than entitled to get a fucking job.

Keg party.

I don't like how Nationalism and fascism are together, so I won't vote...Birds of a feather...

Daddy's more than entitled to get a fucking job.

This is obviously the child's fault.

And there has never been a situation where people aren't able to work because of something other than a lack of interest on their part.

Daddy's more than entitled to get a fucking job.
Agreed.
Birds of a feather...
No and don't ignore what I said when replying just because it wouldn't allow for you to post some feel-good snappy retort....I said this, which contradicts your "birds of a feather" crap.
It's quite possible to have a free-market state, with high social, economic and political freedoms, while being a nationalistic state, with a strong military, controlled immigration and enforced borders.

This would be more of a economcially right wing, socially generally libertarian/free state, with nationalism.

At the same time, it's possible to have a socialist state that is more along the lines of Fascism..where the government takes care of everything, controls the economy and makes sure it's citizens recieve "free" education, healthcare...welfare benefits...ect ect ect....

This would be more of a Leftist-economy, and a rightist authoritarian state, with nationalism.

Communism pwns. It would have been better to spend your whole lifetime in the USSR (before it broke up, obviously) than to spend even one day in capitalist/fascist society like the United States.

Unemployment has always existed; correct. However, I see little reason why this need be the case. If only New Labour had not deemed it worthwhile to overqualify an entire generation, the jobs available would also correspond to the qualifications, and abilities, of the workforce.
Why so? Being 'overwqualified' doesn't stop someone taking a job that doesn't require that qualification.

In any case, you cannot equate 1834 to 2008; the cultural axioms and pillars of society are radically different, whilst the prevailing demographic group is the middle, rather than lower, class. Poverty, poor education and deprivation are no longer endemic, a contingency which reduces the size of the genuinely unemployed in society to a quantity which can be prevailed upon to take a job, and be harrassed by an enlarged police force into doing so.
I'm sure the slums of East London would differ on poverty, poor education and depravation. You can't 'harass' people into taking a job when those jobs simply don't exist, they don't have the qualifications and skills to do it, or they are physically or mentally handicapped. The problem isn't just one of poverty and poor education, it's a problem that's existed in every capitalist economy.

Communism pwns. It would have been better to spend your whole lifetime in the USSR (before it broke up, obviously) than to spend even one day in capitalist/fascist society like the United States.
Hello troll.:)

Why so? Being 'overwqualified' doesn't stop someone taking a job that doesn't require that qualification.


An only slightly relevant thought: sociologists find it interesting that people who believe too many people are going to university still wish for their children to go to university. Likewise, those who believe that there is a surplus of qualifications still believe in getting as qualified as possible themselves.

I don't like how Nationalism and fascism are together, so I won't vote...


Sorry about that; I was quite tired when I wrote this lol. :D

Silly Party...that would be close to the saterical party.Might as well call us the reality party the way things are going..silly just silly!
signed Moo Goo Guy Panfish with his head in a block of Turtle Dung Flipside.
Minister of Elections and Beer nut farts
Fiefdom of Farel the Dog

Hello troll.:)
I thought 'ignore' would be too much effort for this one.

Sorry about that; I was quite tired when I wrote this lol. :D
It's fine, as long as you understand the below post.
I'm a mix between Libertarianism/Nationalism/ and Conservatism.

I don't like how Nationalism and fascism are together, so I won't vote...

It's quite possible to have a free-market state, with high social, economic and political freedoms, while being a nationalist state, with a strong military, controlled immigration and enforced borders...

At the same time, it's possible to have a socialist state that is more along the lines of Fascism..where the government takes care of everything, controls the economy and makes sure it's citizens recieve "free" education, healthcare...welfare benefits...ect ect ect....

An only slightly relevant thought: sociologists find it interesting that people who believe too many people are going to university still wish for their children to go to university. Likewise, those who believe that there is a surplus of qualifications still believe in getting as qualified as possible themselves.
And I know for a fact that Chris (claims to be) at...

"You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down — up to a man's age-old dream; the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order — or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course."

-Ronald Reagan

"You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down — up to a man's age-old dream; the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order — or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course."

-Ronald Reagan

Someone who wasn't as rich as Reagan might have appreciated that there's more to freedom than a mere lack of interference.

BTW: What exactly is the difference between Liberal and Libertarian?

Actually, lack of goverment interference in people's lives is part of the basis of freedom, that and respect for private property.

Actually, lack of goverment interference in people's lives is part of the basis of freedom, that and respect for private property.

I said "more to", you said "part of". Please come back when you manage to reconcile these two phrases that could co-exist so peacefully if only you'd let them.

None of the above, as far as Great Britain goes.

The Conservative Party have an alright, if say-anything leader. But then the actual membership is mostly bigoted old men.

New Labour can kiss my arse.

The Lib Dems are a joke, and Nick Clegg has absolutely no spine, which is disgusting.

The Green Party and anti-Europe, also made generally of fuckwits.

Respect are wankers.

UKIP are wankers.

The BNP should be taken out of politics, preferably in a hail of bullets.

The amount of government interference that your average socialist would like to see or thinks is 'necessary' is unreconcilable with individual freedom. Not to mention that socialist goverments tend to have the same level of respect for the concept of private property as I do for the film oeuvre of Michael Moore.
Moore is a prick who gives socialism a bad name, to be honest. There's a difference between proper socialism, which is basically the pursuit of human happiness (via moderate, not too high taxes and fairly respectable benefits) and simply complaining about everything, and declaring the US the worst thing EVAR.

See also the utter failure of the British hard left (Respect, that kind of crowd). "Boo, boo, the US is an evil dictatorship, which is evil, but HURRAY FOR HUGO CHAVEZ, WOOOO!"

The amount of government interference that your average socialist would like to see or thinks is 'necessary' is unreconcilable with individual freedom. Not to mention that socialist goverments tend to have the same level of respect for the concept of private property as I do for the film oeuvre of Michael Moore.

The amount of government interference that your average socialist would like to see or thinks is 'necessary' is unreconcilable with individual freedom. Not to mention that socialist goverments tend to have the same level of respect for the concept of private property as I do for the film oeuvre of Michael Moore.

What a spectacular divergence from the point.

I think we should backtrack

You: The more the government stays out the more freedom

Me: There's more to freedom than a lack of interference

You: But a lack of interference is a part of freedom!

Me: I'm not disputing that

You: The socialists will never let us be free!

I think the bit where we veered off was after I pointed out is that a lack of interference isn't enough to make one free. If you don't have any money, you'd have more freedom after receiving a welfare check than you would with no interference.

The difference being that the jobs I intend to pursue, and will do so in likelihood, require a degree. I'm also on track for a first in a genuinely academic subject, and am looking into reading history at Ma level at a proper university; not a grey, concrete, drab monolith like York. I rail against the myriad students aspiring only for a 2:1 or 2:2 in a joke degree such as Management Studies, Media Studies and the like.
You in Vanborough or something? :p

And I know for a fact that Chris (claims to be) at...

The difference being that the jobs I intend to pursue, and will do so in likelihood, require a degree. I'm also on track for a first in a genuinely academic subject, and am looking into reading history at Ma level at a proper university; not a grey, concrete, drab monolith like York. I rail against the myriad students aspiring only for a 2:1 or 2:2 in a joke degree such as Management Studies, Media Studies and the like.

I'm sure you'd be dismissive of York students had you got into Oxford.
Oh, but he 'chose' not to go to Oxbridge, IIRC. :p

None of the above, as far as Great Britain goes.

The Conservative Party have an alright, if say-anything leader. But then the actual membership is mostly bigoted old men.
New Labour can kiss my arse.

The Lib Dems are a joke, and Nick Clegg has absolutely no spine, which is disgusting.

The Green Party and anti-Europe, also made generally of fuckwits.

Respect are wankers.

UKIP are wankers.

The BNP should be taken out of politics, preferably in a hail of bullets.

The emboldened section should be inverted. The Tory party have an excellent core vote and core membership, however the platform from which Cameron evinces his centrist tripe, and attracts the like of Baronness Warsi (vacuous, insipid woman) detracts from the genuinely Conservative leaders such as Mr.Hague, Mr.

The difference being that the jobs I intend to pursue, and will do so in likelihood, require a degree. I'm also on track for a first in a genuinely academic subject, and am looking into reading history at Ma level at a proper university; not a grey, concrete, drab monolith like York. I rail against the myriad students aspiring only for a 2:1 or 2:2 in a joke degree such as Management Studies, Media Studies and the like.

I'm sure you'd be dismissive of York students had you got into Oxford. In fact, you seem fairly dismissive of most of them even though you're one of them. Is the criteria for lack of importance "whatever I deem to be less important than what I happen to be doing"?

You in Vanborough or something? :p

Actually, yes. The new blocks that were built 6 weeks late!

Incidentally, have you been to Ziggy's on a saturday night yet? Kinkiindie are running a decent Indie night there now; good night out, but interesting dynamic between Indy kid audiance downstairs, and pervy gentlemen's club members upstairs...

Actually, yes. The new blocks that were built 6 weeks late!
A-ha!

I knew that's why you said "monolithic" and "grey" :p
Incidentally, have you been to Ziggy's on a saturday night yet? Kinkiindie are running a decent Indie night there now; good night out, but interesting dynamic between Indy kid audiance downstairs, and pervy gentlemen's club members upstairs...
Ziggy's is best avoided, in my experience. See also Toff's, which is a terrible club.

I mostly go for drinks at Dusk (good, studenty atmosphere, terrace to smoke on, which is nice), the Cross Keys up Tadcaster Road (excellent beer garden, if grimy inside) and the City Screen café/bar thingy. £3 for a pint of Stella, not a bad price for York, and excellently bourgeois atmosphere, also Trivial Pursuit from the bar (free, yus), which is an excellent game to play when totally pished.

That and I'll sometimes go to the Fibbers dance night, and the Battle of the Bands is about to start up again - mostly shite, but quite good by the end, and something to do if you're bored.

£3 for a pint of Stella, not a bad price for York...
Ouch!

My local does pints of ale for £2.25, though lager may be more expensive. I don't know, as I can't stand that yellow fizzy nonsense.

If I am in Austria, I'd prolly vote for the ÖVP, in Spain I'd vote for the PP, in Germany for CDU/CSU, in Poland for the PO. In my country, we have no or ineffective parties, but one party I'm inclined to join is the Liberal Party.

I'm sure you'd be dismissive of York students had you got into Oxford. In fact, you seem fairly dismissive of most of them even though you're one of them. Is the criteria for lack of importance "whatever I deem to be less important than what I happen to be doing"?

I'm dismissive of them anyway; primarily because the majority of them are dull, drab, uninteresting. Either they are upper class Oxbridge rejects, inoffensively middle class future housewives and insurance salesmen, or lower class students wither obsessed with work, or with drinking. Only the Indie Kids, and there are precious few of us, are actually worth meeting.

I could accept what is probably a social model endemic in British universities if only I was at the university I actually want to be at.

Only the Indie Kids, and there are precious few of us, are actually worth meeting.
As in, kids who listen to indie-rock, kids who are independently-minded or...?

I'm dismissive of them anyway; primarily because the majority of them are dull, drab, uninteresting. Either they are upper class Oxbridge rejects, inoffensively middle class future housewives and insurance salesmen, or lower class students wither obsessed with work, or with drinking. Only the Indie Kids, and there are precious few of us, are actually worth meeting.

I could accept what is probably a social model endemic in British universities if only I was at the university I actually want to be at.

Indie Kids? Are you sure you fit into that group? :D The whole left wing, non-racist, non-conservative thing doesn't seem to suit you very well.

Indie Kids? Are you sure you fit into that group? :D The whole left wing, non-racist, non-conservative thing doesn't seem to suit you very well.

I'm a Tory Indie Kid.:D

I'm a Tory Indie Kid.:D

Look Chris, come over from the dark side. Be left wing. You can even stay a verbose misanthrope - except now you'll be all Daniel Kitson and cool. It just doesn't make sense to ally yourself to Thatcher when John Oliver is where the cred is at.

Ouch!

My local does pints of ale for £2.25, though lager may be more expensive. I don't know, as I can't stand that yellow fizzy nonsense.
York's not cheap for drinks, to be honest. At all.

I can't really tell you what party I vote for. I suppose if you follow my vote pattern, it's more liberal than conservative. I do vote more along the lines of the positions of the candidates on issues that are important to me.

I live in the UK, and I have no idea which party to support...
they all just... suck. :(

York's not cheap for drinks, to be honest. At all.

Triples for Singles at Nags Head is alright, if you can tolerate the inevitable Rugby team social in there.

I also get Triples for Singles at Toffs (yes, my soul is eroded every time I go there, I know:D), what with my knowing one of the barstaff.

Incidentally, does the Lowther always flood?

Triples for Singles at Nags Head is alright, if you can tolerate the inevitable Rugby team social in there.

I also get Triples for Singles at Toffs (yes, my soul is eroded every time I go there, I know:D), what with my knowing one of the barstaff.
You a big fan of cocktails or something?
Incidentally, does the Lowther always flood?
Pretty often. The floods here are nothing like they were in 2001, but they're quite bad enough to flood the lower riverside bits.