crackerjack

Your post reminded me, my fifteen year old daughter (who lives in Brisbane) sent me a snap chat the other day saying phew, only 25 degrees today. She can't wait for the Brisbane winter and loves her annual visit around Christmas to soak up some cold.

You may well do Britchix. I always think if your mood change is that noticeable its definitely worth investigating. I think there is treatment for it, a light box you sit in front of. Life's too short to spend months every year feeling blue.

I was just thinking, Denmark often ranks as the happiest country in the world or close to it. What's their weather like, so I looked it up. It's almost identical to ours. Maybe solidarity and equity are the true bedrock on which happiness is built? That's not to discount people who suffer with SAD in the winter. I just suspect the vast majority of people are not hugely affected by the weather (bar the obvious extremes), and simply accept it's many variances as part of life's rich tapestry.

http:// http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/14/sunny-days-no-difference-mental-wellbeing Read this earlier and found it interesting. I know it's true for me. Only consistently long spells of particularly extreme weather, be it heat, heavy rain, or bitter cold, affects my mood and fortunately in our country, such extremes are rare. I do like a sunny day, cold or warm, but I wouldn't say it raises my mood significantly. What about other peeps?

Watch al, the way through if you have time, but if not, from about 17 minutes in they are talking about the media

Hove is really nice. Both my brother and sister live there. Personally I prefer Worthing but only because I like living somewhere a bit quieter, with big stretches of empty beach, but I can see the appeal.

A wise person once said to me, don't end something until you are sure you won't want to go back. In your case if that means staying where you are, with your understandable niggles and doubts, so be it. You will have niggles and doubts in both places. Sometimes when we sit with uncertainty a certain peace comes to us and ironically it's when we feel more peaceful that we often feel on a gut level which way we should jump. At the moment you are frantic. As someone else said, breathe. No door is sealed shut. No need to panic.

Sounds like you have very fond memories of this part of the world. It really is lovely and Worthing is thriving, developing a real street cafe culture. I think Brighton has got so expensive it's influence is spilling out into Worthing. Shorehams lovely too. When I'm feeling particularly energetic I walk to Shoreham. I'm afraid I don't know Eastbourne too well but I had a lovely night away in Battle a few years back and the East Sussex country side is lovely. You are spoilt for choice round here.

Yes, they will support labour as long as they become tory lite as they did under Bliar so what use is that? They hate ed m because he's taken the party a smidge to the left. If he threatened to be really socialist they would up the anti even more. I would even expect the mirror, it's one loyal supporter to withdraw support. I thought you might find this link interesting. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/may/04/general-election-newspaper-support

Like I said to Britchix Stacey, not everyone is aware that what they are reading is propaganda. Newspapers do not have to abide by the same impartiality laws the tv media has to, though I've noticed the tv media read out paper headlines, perpetuating the myth that newspapers are neutral in their reporting. I think I first realised a bias when I was about twelve, during the minors strike. Our family read the mirror, my gran read the sun. The difference in the reporting was startling. peoples views are shaped by what they read in the papers. This is not a patronising statement as so many (usually tories who are more than happy for people to kid themselves their often tory supporting paper is not having any kind of influence on them) like to suggest. It's a fact. Companies spend millions on advertising because we are, all of us, open to suggestion. If everyday people read papers which are selling a particular narrative about the economy/country/immigration/trade unions/ etc etc, without the realisation that what they are reading is biased, then of coursw what they are reading informs their opinions. The reason the tories have been in power something like 100 years, compared to twenty five for labour, is not because they are the better party, it's because they are the richest party with the strongest media backing, a backing that has a huge influence on how people vote. I'm not saying it's the only influence, I'm just saying it's a major boon to the tories to have so much advertising they don't even have to pay for. In fact we pay for it ourselves when we buy our newspaper, and it's advertising we don't even realise we are being subjected to, making it doubly effective. With the growing advance of social media, newspaper readership is falling. This is shifting influence away from the rich and powerful and that can only be a good thing. Anyway I've stayed up much later than I should so I bid you all a good night.

Just a few points to make before I go to bed. Firstly to Thorn, sorry if I made an assumption about your imperviosity. It's just when you were so blatantly using stereotypes yourself it seemed odd that you would point the finger at me for doing so. It's like a person five stone over weight pointing to another obese person and calling them fat and lazy. Something that would naturally raise eyebrows. Britchix, thanks for admitting you weren't aware of the level of bias amongst the print media. It takes a certain strength of character to acknowledge we don't know something and you help prove my point in regard to the importance of these tv debates. Every day people read their papers not always realising they are reading an opinion paper rather than a news paper. Take this story about the debates. The telegraph reported 'Cameron stands up to the Broadcasters' painting him to be the victim standing up to the bullies. The guardian, a liberal paper, had the headline, broadcasters call Cameron bluff. Same story with demonstrably different slants to them depending on each papers particular allegiance. As most papers are owned and run by rich people, the majority support the tories, because quite frankly, the tory party is the party of the rich. Cameron knows this, so why appear in the TV debates. He gets all that support from the papers (the complete opposite of ed milibands position), and he also leads the best funded party thanks to all his rich friends, therefore can afford to spend three times what Labour can afford to spend on their election campaign (despite the fact the tories have a much smaller membership), the TV debates are just a risk he feels he doesn't have to take. It's too much exposure and under scrutiny he does not do well. On the other hand, ed miliband has been so scorned, mocked and vilified by the media, he only has to show up for his approval ratings to go up. The tory strategy of painting ed as some weak, incompetent Wallace look alike who can't even eat a bacon butty with panache, will only succeed if ed gets as little exposure as possible. Yes ed will be filmed out and about on the campaign trail, but that won't get a fraction of the viewers the TV debates will attract. So Cameron is desperately trying to scupper them. As for anyone who tries to tell you prime ministers questions is a debate, do not believe it for a second. The leader of the opposition asks questions of the prime minister, which the prime minister always fails to answer. It is all one way. The prime minister makes jibes at the leader of the opposition which he can't fully reply to due to the fact it is prime ministers question time not leader of the oppositions question time. A debate is only a debate when it's on a level footing. The TV debates will be, which is precisely why Cameron is trying his best to wriggle out of them. Scottish Stacey. I heard Natalie Bennett gave a good conference speech. All politicians have the occasional car crash interview. Like you, I felt for her greatly. It's good to know she dusted herself off and gave a good speech to her party.

Night night

Thanks Ali for combining the two threads. As for people who use the terms Milibean and Greeny loopies. I highly recommend the telegraph comments pages. They are full of right wingers making equally vapid arguments. One recently advised my lovely thoughtful wife to 'go and boil your head you lefty troll'. I admit its hard to have faith in such people recognising they are being brainwashed by right wing media bias.

Great news. If Labour win the election they will enshrine leadership debates in law. No future PM will be able to wriggle out of them or veto them, including of course Ed M himself. This is good news for democracy. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/07/ed-miliband-leaders-tv-debates-guarantee-law

The Daily Telegraph Right, conservative Conservative Party The Sunday Telegraph Centre-right, conservative Financial Times Economically liberal, politically centrist Conservative The Sunday Times Right Conservative Party The Guardian Centre-left and social-liberal Liberal Democrats The Observer Centre-left, social-liberal The Independent Economically liberal, politically centre-left Liberal Democrats The Times Centre-right Conservative Party Independent Print Limited Centre-left, liberal views Daily Mail Right Conservative Party Daily Express Right Conservative Party The Mail on Sunday Right Conservative Party The Sun conservative Conservative Party The Sun on Sunday conservative Daily Mirror left-wing, populist Labour Party Sunday Mirror left-wing, populist Labour Party Daily Star conservative Daily Star Sunday conservative This is a fairly comprehensive list of most newspapers and the parties they support. Only one paper supports Labour. 12 support the conservatives. Personally I don't think you have to be a communist to recognise the bias. Also the old adage that the BBC is left wing has died a death. It may once have been true, but now it is recognised to lean the other way. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-accused-ofpolitical-bias--on-the-right-not-the-left-9129639.html This is why the tv debates are so important. A whole two hours where people get to see the leaders through their own eyes, not through the selective lens of a right wing paparazzi determined to capture the most ridiculous shot possible.