http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....a6eca8056c82e#

:::Jerry::::
Nov 3, 9:00 am show options
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y
From: ":::Jerry::::" - Find messages by this
author
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 09:00:12 -0000
Local: Thurs, Nov 3 2005 9:00 am
Subject: All these damn rules controlling every aspect of life!
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message

eenews.net...

[ re current HMG ]
snip

Intelligence, and common sense is better.

What, after yesterdays fiasco's?

FFS they can't even get their own MP's to support them!...


Of course, Maggie was fully supported by HER M.P.s, wasn't she? FFS,
even that load of over privileged prats realised that she was as mad as
a fish, and should be dumped ASAP!

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
eenews.net...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
eenews.net...
"Cenfus" wrote in message
ups.com...

snip

and the damage caused by the
Blair administration (over-regulation,
pension-fund raiding, government-sector
over-manning) will take another decade to show
through in lower productivity, wealth and living standards.

Damage? The longest rate of economic
growth in history. And this turkey
says Thatcher did it. Please get help.

I doubt that there will be many (self respecting) political
historians who will disagree with "Cenfus", economic growth is
not
like a tungsten light bulb being switched on - more like a sodium
bulb - a dim glimmer of light slowly develops into a bright light
over time. You might be right in your suggestion that it wasn't
the
economic policy put in place by Thatcher that has caused the
present
economic growth but *will* have been that put in place by Mayor.

That is it.
snip your garbage

You really can't stand the truth, can you?...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
eenews.net...

snip

A skills mismatch. We are desperately short of building skills.


We are were you're concerned...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
eenews.net...

snip
please get professional help.


After you...

In message , fred writes
In article t, Chip
writes
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:15:18 GMT,it is alleged that fred
spake thusly in uk.d-i-y:

[snip]

Wait 'til you've got your ID card matey, those trivial little annoyances will
be the least of your worries :-/

Nah, there's nothing on the ID card that 15 seconds on high in the
nuker won't fix :-)

Ok, VOT but:
The card is the tip of the iceberg, think more about:

Failure to attend an interview at a specified place and time
Failure to provide information demanded by the government
Failure to submit to fingerprinting
Failure to notify the Secretary of State of any change in personal
circumstances (including change of address)
Failure to notify authorities about a lost, stolen, damaged or
defective card
Failure to renew a card

Penalties range from £1,000 fine to two years imprisonment.

1984 + 21 = 2005, ooh, George Orwell has come of age :-/

I sincerely hope you signed up with no2id

--
geoff

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article
ws.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
Err well, seeing that countries like Germany and France might
well
have to go through the same economic / industry reforms that the
UK
went through in the early '80's I'm not at all sure if it was
squandered - it could be, that perticular Thaterright policy was
ahead of it's time. IOW, north aea oil was what allowed us to get
a
head start.

Destroying your industry is *not* reform. Spending your capital on
unemployment benefit is *not* good sense. Most of what Thatcher did
was
damaging to the country. Some of it was nasty, vindictive,
murderous, and in
any equitable society she would have been hung, drawn, and
quartered before
she became senile.

OK Arguably that would have been before she became PM but that's
not an
argument that I'd accept. She was sane at the time of her crimes.
Bad - but
not mad.


Clueless! :~(

Do you really think that paying ten people to do one mans work was
efficient, that was British industry BEFORE the '80's!

I'm not talking about her vindictive approach to some unions but her
realisation that UK industry was un economic. Re reading the Labour
Manifesto of '79 I suspect that Callaghan had come to the same
conclusion and would have used oil revenue to re structure the
countries industry, if only he had gone to the country in '78 -
before the 'Winter of Discontent'...

"raden" wrote in message
news
In message , fred writes

snip

1984 + 21 = 2005, ooh, George Orwell has come of age :-/

I sincerely hope you signed up with no2id


Do you honestly believe that Blair and Co. will take any notice of a
web petition when they don't even take note of what Parliament says?
:~(

Now, should it be a 'holiday home' in France or Spain...

John Cartmell wrote:
Destroying your industry is *not* reform. Spending your capital on
unemployment benefit is *not* good sense. Most of what Thatcher did was
damaging to the country.

That's why, of course, when Labour won, a certain Mr. Healy commented
that "This time, we (Labour) are fortunate to inherit an economy that
is in pretty good shape". If you cannot remember, as may well be the
case, Dennis Healy was Chancellor of the Exchequer when Labour were in
power in the 1970s.

OK Arguably that would have been before she became PM but that's not an
argument that I'd accept. She was sane at the time of her crimes. Bad - but
not mad.

Crimes? Laughable.

Anyway, uk.politics.misc went that --- way.

" A skills mismatch" "We are desperately short of building skills"

That's a good one.

Perhaps you could offer your services to John Guest to train plumbers
on how to cut their pipe. Ask the rep next time he comes in.

intrusion

What might that be?

Cherie working Tony's lever at the back to make his lips move.

andy hall wrote:
Perhaps you could offer your services to John Guest to train plumbers
on how to cut their pipe. Ask the rep next time he comes in.

Perhaps you could learn to post properly. Are you another DIY
banterer?

On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 19:30:12 +0000, andymason79
wrote:


Especially building, gas, electric, windows, steelwork, insulation,
ventalation, poop pipes etc!

Who is with me?

Lets bring back Maggie!


Great idea! That old witch started the decline of our country - bring
her back and let her finish it off? I think not.

Kill the witch! Kill the witch!

--
Warning: Do not look directly into laser with remaining eye.

On 3 Nov 2005 04:02:34 -0800, "Cenfus" wrote:


We now have full employment; something the Germans and French can only
dream of.

Huh? Isn't unemployment running at 25% ATM even with the massaged
figures?

--
Warning: Do not look directly into laser with remaining eye.

In article ws.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
Do you really think that paying ten people to do one mans work was
efficient, that was British industry BEFORE the '80's!

That's what you were told. You obviously believed it. It was a lie.

I'm not talking about her vindictive approach to some unions but her
realisation that UK industry was un economic.

Because it was very badly managed. It was changed to be extremely badly
managed.

Re reading the Labour Manifesto of '79 I suspect that Callaghan had come to
the same conclusion and would have used oil revenue to re structure the
countries industry, if only he had gone to the country in '78 - before the
'Winter of Discontent'...

Absolutely. But the 'Winter of Discontent' was almost 100% tabloid fiction.
The mainly successful attempts by the Labour (with Liberal) government to
reduce the 'through the roof' inflation of the previous Tory government had
hit especially hard on the lower paid. Letting go after a period of restraint
is always particularly difficult but the government were (mainly) managing it.
The Liberals bailed out of the coalition in order to reduce the political cost
at the next election of being in government and the tabloids scented blood.
Thatcher solved the very tricky and delicate problem of possible re-inflation
by destroying industry and letting unemployment rip to way over 4 million
after being elected on a 'reduce unemployment' ticket.

Getting back to something close to uk.d.i.y. I worked at finding jobs for
people in the building industry during the 70s and managed a close-on 100%
success rate to get joiners, brickies, plasterers, H&V Engineers, &c in work
at the end of a six-moth training course. Employment prospects never got back
to that in the 80s and 90s - and house prices didn't go down because that
'over-employment' had disappeared.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
.uk...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
eenews.net...

We now have full employment;

Not due to Thatcher. If you think that get professional help.


Has anyone actually looked at how many unemployed there are?
There are lots and there is noway we have full employment.

A skills mismatch. We are desperately short of building skills.

The statistics are masked in an exercise that would've won
a Big Brother prize in Orwell's Ministry of Truth.
Unemployed morphed into 'on Receipt of Benefit' which
morphed after 'benefit' stops being paid .... into 'Economically
Inactive".

--

Brian

wrote in message
oups.com...

Brian Sharrock wrote:

And; we actually know the name of the ONE:- it transpires that
the MP who's vote saved 'Tony' was a certain David Blunkett
- 'I haven't done nothing wrong!"- who returned to the Common's
lobby to vote for the government -without his vote it would've
been a tie.

In which case, the Speaker would have exercised his casting vote in
favour of the Government of the day. Ties are always resolved in favour
of the Government.


Although you're correct constitutionally ... the Speaker is _expected_
to vote for the Government the member for Sheffield Brightside(?)
could have been expected to point out that the rules (Erskine)
only say _should_ .... ! Glasgow Mick might have muttered
something which the Hansard Writer might've rendered in
English as 'I diina ken what to do .... I diina want to do anything wrong!"
Seriously; the Fettes/Oxford educated Scot might have been faced
with electoral disaster when the English realised that Habeas Corpus
and the right to be brought before a magistrate had been suborned
by a claques of Scots!

--

Brian

"Geoffrey" wrote in message
...
snip

Kill the witch! Kill the witch!


Isn't there a film called '(the) Blair Witch' or some such title?...

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 21:39:17 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

Do you really think that paying ten people to do one mans work was
efficient, that was British industry BEFORE the '80's!

And now industry pays one man to do the work of 5 people (if it can't
get some poverty stricken third world worker to do it for less).

Vive la capitalism!

--
Warning: Do not look directly into laser with remaining eye.

In article , raden
writes
In message , fred writes

The card is the tip of the iceberg, think more about:

Failure to attend an interview at a specified place and time
Failure to provide information demanded by the government
Failure to submit to fingerprinting
Failure to notify the Secretary of State of any change in personal
circumstances (including change of address)
Failure to notify authorities about a lost, stolen, damaged or
defective card
Failure to renew a card

Penalties range from £1,000 fine to two years imprisonment.

1984 + 21 = 2005, ooh, George Orwell has come of age :-/

I sincerely hope you signed up with no2id

With views like those, how could I not have signed ;-|.

Now, pass me the designs for those DIY barricades.
--
fred
Plusnet - I hope you like vanilla

In article , Chris Bacon
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
Destroying your industry is *not* reform. Spending your capital on
unemployment benefit is *not* good sense. Most of what Thatcher did was
damaging to the country.

That's why, of course, when Labour won, a certain Mr. Healy commented that
"This time, we (Labour) are fortunate to inherit an economy that is in
pretty good shape". If you cannot remember, as may well be the case, Dennis
Healy was Chancellor of the Exchequer when Labour were in power in the
1970s.

I do know of Dennis and have met him. Great fellow even if I did disagree
with some of his politics. He was comparing the economic cycle of 1997 with
that in 1974 and 1964 (and possibly 1945). In every case other than 1997 when
the Labour Government opened the books the whole thing was in an absolute
shambles. In 1997 we were recovering from a shambles and the depth of that
shambles was already appreciated by the electorate. The 'only' problem was to
keep it going steady (something that no-one had ever managed before). Eight
years beats all records ...

OK Arguably that would have been before she became PM but that's not an
argument that I'd accept. She was sane at the time of her crimes. Bad -
but not mad.

Crimes? Laughable.

No. People giving up their homes because their mortgage payments doubled
overnight is not a laughing matter. People being thrown out of work because
the gvernment is too stupid to reduce inflation any other way is not a
laughing matter. People having their faces burnt off because Thatcher was too
penny-pinching to keep a UK presence in the South Atlantic is not a laughing
matter. People committing suicide because their business and home were lost
through no fault of their own - but clearly the direct result of government
policy designed to make the rich richer at the cost of others - is not a
laughing matter.

And *******s like you voted for her because you couldn't think for yourself -
or where you one of those with enough spare capital to grow rich at the
expense of everyone else?

Anyway, uk.politics.misc went that --- way.

You laughed. Don't do that and not expect an off-topic but on-reality reply.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

John Cartmell wrote:

Destroying your industry is *not* reform. Spending your capital on
unemployment benefit is *not* good sense. Most of what Thatcher did was
damaging to the country. Some of it was nasty, vindictive, murderous, and in
any equitable society she would have been hung, drawn, and quartered before
she became senile.

Agreed

OK Arguably that would have been before she became PM but that's not an
argument that I'd accept.

She was sane at the time of her crimes. Bad - but not mad.

Some would doubt she was *ever* sane.

But its not going to be long before Maggie joins Adolf and his chums
in hell. The evil twisted bitch won't be missed at all but it's a
great pity she couldn't be struck down by a suitable illness and hang
on in great pain for a few more years at least.

The queue to dance on her grave will be at least be a mile long.


--

"andy hall" wrote:

intrusion

What might that be?

Cherie working Tony's lever at the back to make his lips move.

That explains Tony's lips, how do you explain Cherie's?


--

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 23:04:56 +0000, Matt
wrote:



The queue to dance on her grave will be at least be a mile long.

Make that a mile and a foot - I'm always late


--
Warning: Do not look directly into laser with remaining eye.

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 23:06:23 +0000, Matt wrote:

"andy hall" wrote:

intrusion

What might that be?

Cherie working Tony's lever at the back to make his lips move.

That explains Tony's lips, how do you explain Cherie's?

Silicone injections.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 23:06:23 +0000, Matt wrote:

"andy hall" wrote:

intrusion

What might that be?

Cherie working Tony's lever at the back to make his lips move.

That explains Tony's lips, how do you explain Cherie's?

Silicone injections.

She ought to sue. Does she know a good lawyer?


--

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...

Jerry, please get attention.

"andy hall" aka Matt wrote in message
oups.com...
" A skills mismatch" "We are desperately short of building skills"

That's a good one.

Perhaps you could offer your services to John Guest to train

....toymakers, Matt.

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article
ws.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
Do you really think that paying ten people to do one mans work
was
efficient, that was British industry BEFORE the '80's!

That's what you were told. You obviously believed it. It was a lie.

So one man operating a CNC lathe or CAM manufacturing (and it's
predecessors) plant is not more economic than having ten people doing
the same work? You might not like the fact that countries like the
Japan were using such methods in the late '70's and thus selling
their products cheaper but you can't change the fact that they were.


I'm not talking about her vindictive approach to some unions but
her
realisation that UK industry was un economic.

Because it was very badly managed. It was changed to be extremely
badly
managed.

....and who were trying to tell the management how to manage?...


Re reading the Labour Manifesto of '79 I suspect that Callaghan
had come to
the same conclusion and would have used oil revenue to re
structure the
countries industry, if only he had gone to the country in '78 -
before the
'Winter of Discontent'...

Absolutely. But the 'Winter of Discontent' was almost 100% tabloid
fiction.

By that I take it that you are no more than about 30 years old (and
thus have no memory of that winter), or are you saying that all the
film that exists of locked grave-yards, rubbish in the streets and
various other 'problems' were just film sets used by the right wing
media (funny that, the media is always the opposite to what the
Government is at the time...)?!

The mainly successful attempts by the Labour (with Liberal)
government to
reduce the 'through the roof' inflation of the previous Tory
government had
hit especially hard on the lower paid. Letting go after a period of
restraint
is always particularly difficult but the government were (mainly)
managing it.
The Liberals bailed out of the coalition in order to reduce the
political cost
at the next election of being in government and the tabloids
scented blood.
Thatcher solved the very tricky and delicate problem of possible
re-inflation
by destroying industry and letting unemployment rip to way over 4
million
after being elected on a 'reduce unemployment' ticket.

That is your take on the facts, but if the UK was in such a good
state (economically) why did Callaghan lose? I'm not defending most
of what Thatcher did, in retrospect much was bad if not vindictive
[1] but I do think that the reconstruction of the British
manufacturing base (yes I do mean the cutting out of out-dated and
uneconomic work practises) was necessary and beneficial to 'UK
industry Ltd'.

[1] a lot of the current ills of 'society' can, IMO, be directly
linked back to many of Thatcher's values - was it not her who once
said that "their is no such thing as society", well there certainly
doesn't deem to be one today... :~(

The fact that many other countries are only now waking up to the
realities of (far eastern) 'competition' and that they will have to
re structure or die is surely proof that the UK has been one or two
steps ahead for the past twenty odd years.


Getting back to something close to uk.d.i.y. I worked at finding
jobs for
people in the building industry during the 70s and managed a
close-on 100%
success rate to get joiners, brickies, plasterers, H&V Engineers,
&c in work
at the end of a six-moth training course. Employment prospects
never got back
to that in the 80s and 90s - and house prices didn't go down
because that
'over-employment' had disappeared.


'Finding jobs', were they real jobs or were they created to keep
people off the dole?

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article , Chris Bacon
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
Destroying your industry is *not* reform. Spending your capital on
unemployment benefit is *not* good sense. Most of what Thatcher did
was
damaging to the country.

That's why, of course, when Labour won, a certain Mr. Healy commented
that
"This time, we (Labour) are fortunate to inherit an economy that is in
pretty good shape". If you cannot remember, as may well be the case,
Dennis
Healy was Chancellor of the Exchequer when Labour were in power in the
1970s.

I do know of Dennis and have met him. Great fellow even if I did disagree
with some of his politics. He was comparing the economic cycle of 1997
with
that in 1974 and 1964 (and possibly 1945). In every case other than 1997
when
the Labour Government opened the books the whole thing was in an absolute
shambles. In 1997 we were recovering from a shambles and the depth of that
shambles was already appreciated by the electorate. The 'only' problem was
to
keep it going steady (something that no-one had ever managed before).
Eight
years beats all records ...

OK Arguably that would have been before she became PM but that's not
an
argument that I'd accept. She was sane at the time of her crimes.
Bad -
but not mad.

Crimes? Laughable.

No. People giving up their homes because their mortgage payments doubled
overnight is not a laughing matter. People being thrown out of work
because
the gvernment is too stupid to reduce inflation any other way is not a
laughing matter. People having their faces burnt off because Thatcher was
too
penny-pinching to keep a UK presence in the South Atlantic is not a
laughing
matter. People committing suicide because their business and home were
lost
through no fault of their own - but clearly the direct result of
government
policy designed to make the rich richer at the cost of others - is not a
laughing matter.

And *******s like you voted for her because you couldn't think for
yourself -

Nice one.

"andy hall" aka Matt wrote in message
ups.com...
intrusion

What might that be?

Cherie working Tony's lever at the back to make his lips move.

Matt, you made that up.

"Matt" aka Lord Hall wrote in message
...
"andy hall" wrote:

intrusion

What might that be?

Cherie working Tony's lever at the back to make his lips move.

That explains Tony's lips, how do you explain Cherie's?

Lord Hall, you made that up.

"Geoffrey" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 21:39:17 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"

wrote:

Do you really think that paying ten people to do one mans work was
efficient, that was British industry BEFORE the '80's!

And now industry pays one man to do the work of 5 people (if it
can't
get some poverty stricken third world worker to do it for less).

Vive la capitalism!


Unless you are going to tell someone what they can import or buy
(never mind trying to export) which product do you think people will
buy, the one costing 10 GBP or the one costing 30 GBP?

Communism is also dead, in case you hadn't noticed...!

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John wrote:
What we need is a political group with the determination to cut state
interference with our lives not the present crews ever increasing
intrusion

That leads to reduced inspections on farms and abbattoirs; guess what
happens?

If you're thinking of gas, electricity and building - I'd probably agree;

What? Have you seen the state of the crap the developers turn out? I would
incraese it in building

And they are. By April 2006 all trades are to have a Corgi type of
competence. Corgi is working with the government on the plumbing trade.

but it's better than not being able to afford to get someone else to do
the work -
or even DIY - because your mortgage payments have just doubled. I'll stick
with the present lot, thanks - and tell them to think again on the bits
that
inconvenience me.

"John" wrote in message
...

I think Blair is a liar

Can you prove a lie please. You can always have Thatcher and mass poverty
and destitution again.

"Geoffrey" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 19:30:12 +0000, andymason79
wrote:


Especially building, gas, electric, windows, steelwork, insulation,
ventalation, poop pipes etc!

Who is with me?

Lets bring back Maggie!

Great idea! That old witch started the decline of our country - bring
her back and let her finish it off? I think not.

Kill the witch! Kill the witch!

I would go along with that.

John Cartmell wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
Frank Erskine wrote:

I'm not sure about Maggie, but somebody other than this current lot
might make some sense.

Yes, keep playing the game, the duopoly game.

Lab pushes the electorate as far as it can, until eventually everyone
says "somebody other than this current lot might make some sense"

Con pushes the electorate as far as it can, until eventually everyone
says "somebody other than this current lot might make some sense"

Rinse & Repeat.

Regrettably I dont have a full solution.

The present government do. You may have noticed that they are not playing that
game. That's why there is no opposition.

threy playing it to the max.

Theres no opposition becuase the cons are currently so incompetent they
cant even work out what the problem is

NT

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 23:56:45 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:



Unless you are going to tell someone what they can import or buy
(never mind trying to export) which product do you think people will
buy, the one costing 10 GBP or the one costing 30 GBP?



sigh Maggie's legacy. Once upon a time not (quite) everything was
about profit.



--
Warning: Do not look directly into laser with remaining eye.

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article
ws.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
Do you really think that paying ten people to do one mans work
was
efficient, that was British industry BEFORE the '80's!

That's what you were told. You obviously believed it. It was a lie.

snip Jerry babble

I'm not talking about her vindictive approach to some unions but
her
realisation that UK industry was un economic.

Because it was very badly managed. It was changed to be extremely
badly
managed.

...and who were trying to tell the management how to manage?...


Re reading the Labour Manifesto of '79 I suspect that Callaghan
had come to
the same conclusion and would have used oil revenue to re
structure the
countries industry, if only he had gone to the country in '78 -
before the
'Winter of Discontent'...

Absolutely. But the 'Winter of Discontent' was almost 100% tabloid
fiction.

By that I take it that you are no
more than about 30 years old

Jerry, that winter was few high profile strikes. There was no mass
employment or deprivation.

The mainly successful attempts by the Labour (with Liberal)
government to
reduce the 'through the roof' inflation of the previous Tory
government had
hit especially hard on the lower paid. Letting go after a period of
restraint
is always particularly difficult but the government were (mainly)
managing it.
The Liberals bailed out of the coalition in order to reduce the
political cost
at the next election of being in government and the tabloids
scented blood.
Thatcher solved the very tricky and delicate problem of possible
re-inflation
by destroying industry and letting unemployment rip to way over 4
million
after being elected on a 'reduce unemployment' ticket.

That is your take on the facts,

Jerry, that is 100% factual..

Getting back to something close to uk.d.i.y. I worked at finding
jobs for
people in the building industry during the 70s and managed a
close-on 100%
success rate to get joiners, brickies, plasterers, H&V Engineers,
&c in work
at the end of a six-moth training course. Employment prospects
never got back
to that in the 80s and 90s - and house prices didn't go down
because that
'over-employment' had disappeared.

'Finding jobs', were they real jobs or were they created to keep
people off the dole?

Jerry, they were real jobs.

"Geoffrey" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 23:56:45 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"

wrote:



Unless you are going to tell someone what they can import or buy
(never mind trying to export) which product do you think people
will
buy, the one costing 10 GBP or the one costing 30 GBP?



sigh Maggie's legacy. Once upon a time not (quite) everything
was
about profit.


sighthe legacy of Karl Marks/sigh....

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
snip

The present government do. You may have noticed that they are not
playing that
game. That's why there is no opposition.


If the Tories have got it so wrong over the last twenty odd years why
is the leadership of the current (new) Labour copying Tory policy and
not the pushing the policies of old Labour?....