Tomsk79

The Chinese Room is a thought experiment conceived by the American philosopher John Searle, in which you watch the infamous 2003 film The Room, then translate it into Chinese. Searle postulated that the act of translation could not make the dialogue any worse than it already is. It was on the sixth viewing of The Room that one of its deepest secrets became clear to me: every scene resembles the sort of highly contrived dialogue found only in language learning textbooks. I can only imagine that when Tommy Wiseau first studied humanity on his home planet, his textbook convinced him that all human interaction consisted of people meeting, greeting and leaving in quick succession, like talking billiard balls. As an example of Searle's thought experiment, I present the Flower Shop Scene translated into bad beginner's level Mandarin (from bad beginner's level English): 约翰尼: 你好. Yuēhànní: Nǐ hǎo. 售货员: 你要什么？ Shòuhuòyuán: Nǐ yào shénme? 约翰尼: 十二朵红色的玫瑰. Yuēhànní: Shíèr duo

According to Andrew Rawnsley , a hung parliament is quite a plausible outcome of the 2015 election. But how likely is it really compared to the 2010 election? In 2010, a number of factors made a hung parliament a very likely outcome. The Conservatives were in the ascendant, but due to the geographical spread of their voters they required a larger poll lead than Labour in order to secure a majority. Using the Electoral Calculus model we can estimate the leads Labour and the Conservatives would have required to get a majority: Labour Conservative Conservative lead Outcome 28 39 +11 Con majority 6 29 38 +9 Hung - Con short 11 30 37 +7 Hung - Con short 23 31 36 +5 Hung - Con short 40 32 35 +3 Hung - Lab short 37 33 34 +1 Hung - Lab short 24 34 33 -1 Hung - Lab short 15 35 32 -3 Lab majority 6 In the end, the Conservative lead was seven points and so they had to go into coalition with the Lib Dems. The Tories have since attempt

While Lord Adonis's suggestion of moving the House of Lords up to Salford Quays is an admirable attempt to spread power away from the capital, it's unclear what crime Salford has committed to deserve having the Lords foisted upon it. It is also, sadly, a bit daft to move a revising chamber 200 miles away from the people it's supposed to be keeping an eye on, even if Adonis's beloved HS2 does get built. All the idea needs is a little tweaking though. The best way to cure Londonitis is by setting up a devolved English parliament, which also happens to solve the West Lothian question as well. "But what about regional assemblies!" you cry, eruditely. Well, as an innocent bystander in the North East regional assembly referendum of 2004, I can only suggest that the bludgeoning the idea received at the hands of the voters implies that it's perhaps not the most popular solution. As far as I am aware the only serious objections to an English parliament are

Is not calling on peers to support a bill equivalent to calling on peers not to support a bill? Opinions don't appear not to not undiffer.

At this weekend's spring conference, Lib Dem activists have perhaps their last chance to halt their party's self-destruction. While their MPs' born-again espousal of Osbornomics and trebling of tuition fees was a little upsetting for those of us who thought we were voting for the opposite, it is the NHS bill that really has the power to wipe the Lib Dems from the electoral map. Not just because they would be betraying the legacy of the great liberal William Beveridge, but because they would be doing so in direct contradiction of the terms of the coalition agreement: " we will stop the top-down reorganisations of the NHS that have got in the way of patient care ." If the parliamentary Lib Dems truly believe in coalition government, they have a duty to vote this bill down. If they believe in saving their own seats, they should vote it down. If they believe it would be a jolly fine jape to play on Cameron, they should vote it down. They would be mad not to. Unle