Hi,

I'd be offended by that if I was capable of independant thought.

Just an FYI;

The "problem" associated with standard incandecent lightbulbs is their inefficiency when compared to the light output and energy requirements of flourecents.

The "problems" associated with flourecents are the fact they contain hazardous materials and connot legally be disposed of through our current household refuse collection service ( which nobody told us) , emit the wrong kind of light thus causing partially sighted people more problems than incandecents (which nobody apparently knew ) and cost over five times as much to purchase (which nobody earning £60,000+ as a politician gives a damn about ).

We can still buy incandecents in the stores though some are beginning to phase out 100 watt bulbs. There is a large amount of discussion and investigation going on about the issue so it is by no means clear that the proposed ban will ever take place. I tend to think it would be a serious mistake if it were to take place.

The problems with the money and elections isn't really as big an issue over here as all election funding is heavily scruitinized and there is a system of parity imposed to prevent the budgets giving too much of an advantage to any side. You cannot buy more newspaper adverts or television time than your opponents for example.

We also have strict rules preventing anyone from changing the law to help their supporters for money - there is currently an investigation going on about several members of the house of lords (our second chamber ) who are accused of doing precisely that. As you say corruption is sadly universal.

I am also sad to say your government controls your grocery shopping just as firmly as mine - they may not be as blatant about it or tell you anything about it but a simple search on banned food additives or chemicals should show you what they prevent any retailers from offering.


dr del