In article ,
hugh ] wrote:
But how many of those eligible to vote were at that meeting?

Never actually counted them but in those days the meetings were
generally held in the open air just off site during lunch breaks so I
guess the turn out would be pretty high.

If, as is claimed, there was massive successful intimidation, surely those
wimps who couldn't stand up for themselves would simply stay away from the
meeting?

--
*A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times more memory.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
Well not me NuLabore stole a lot from my pension fund! I could have
retired with 50% more pension if the idiots had not voted for NuLabore.

My company pension is exactly as it was promised when I first subscribed
to it. So a well managed fund wasn't effected by that tax.

--
*Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
Just give it a few years of Tory cuts to find out what a basket case
really is. They've made a start already. Closing a local unit used for
treatment of those with addiction problems which isn't being replaced.

And that is without any cuts in NHS spending,

The cuts have already started. Even more so in those parts jointly funded
by the NHS and a local authority, like some forms of care. And they will
inevitably get much much worse.

just imagine what it would have been like if labour had had another five
years to screw up the economy.

The news has just reported shares dropping 15% today. All the fault of
labour, obviously.

--
*I'm pretty sure that sex is better than logic, but I can't prove it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:43:11 +0000 (GMT) Dave Plowman (News) wrote :
Strange. My memory gives a constantly rising standard of living and
financial stability for much of the 15 years or so of the last labour
government. Not the dire position the country is now in. Wonder just
how long Cameron will carry on blaming everyone else for this?

Yes, my personal balance sheet at the time I emigrated (Sep 2008) was
vastly better than when Labour came to power. I benefited significantly
from the big cut in company car tax on low CO2 cars and from cuts in
corporation tax, and when I making good money I reduced my mortgage as
fast as I could. I paid a lot of tax but 60% of something is a lot
better than 100% of nothing.

There's no denying that the last Labour government would have done well
to have exercised prudence g when the economy was on a roll rather
than spending more and more on borrowed money, but no one forced all
the individuals who did just this to do so. I had a conversation some
years back with my then MP, Vince Cable - can't remember the exact
subject but his point was that people were increasing their mortgages
on the back of increased house prices and spending the money on cars
and holidays. Until then (me being naive) it had never occurred to me
that people would be that stupid. And now the bill has to be paid they
blame the politicians. Even now, with mortgage rates at historic lows,
most people would rather pay the minimum than see it as an opportunity
to reduce the amount outstanding.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

In article
,
Steve Firth wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
And why not? In broadcast, new technology often means more
complication. So greater skills needed to operate it.

Of course I do realise you think any 'worker' should be grateful for
any scraps thrown to him by his master.

I've learnt new stuff all my working life. In the software and
networking business that's expected to be the norm.

Every day is a learning experience in broadcast, as no two progs are
ever the same.

I think you are missing some irony tags there. The vast majority of UK
broadcasting is "the same". If one channel does X, another will slavishly
copy it.


I think you're missing the irony of comparing software to near anything
else in real life. It is never right at the first issue - and you're
expected to pay for it being put right or improved in the future. Even BL
didn't take the **** like that...

--
He who laughs last, thinks slowest*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
And why not? In broadcast, new technology often means more
complication. So greater skills needed to operate it.


Complete rubbish, they seldom make stuff more complicated, just
different.

Pray tell of your experience in broadcasting?

--
*Too many clicks spoil the browse *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Strange. My memory gives a constantly rising standard of living and
financial stability for much of the 15 years or so of the last labour
government.


Not the dire position the country is now in. Wonder just how
long Cameron will carry on blaming everyone else for this?


Yeabut other bits of Europe aren't in that good a condition are they
Dave?..

They are not. And not helped by Cameron flouncing out of that meeting.

But then the major problems at the end of the last government weren't just
caused by UK matters either.

--
*Wrinkled was not one of the things I wanted to be when I grew up

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:04:09 +0000 (GMT) Dave Plowman (News) wrote :
In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
Well not me NuLabore stole a lot from my pension fund! I could have
retired with 50% more pension if the idiots had not voted for NuLabore.

My company pension is exactly as it was promised when I first subscribed
to it. So a well managed fund wasn't effected by that tax.

If was OK in good times to take a pension contribution holiday, why wasn't
it appropriate to pay 5% more (or whatever) to compensate for the tax
change? Stupid question, I know.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

"harry" wrote in message
...

I have never lived in a rented building.

the
future.
The money used;
(a) Never existed at all,
(b) Was borrowed.

Now we will all have to pay for the half wits that governed us called
"New Labour". It will take decades to get back to where we were. Even
supposing it's possible.



This one is total brainwashed idiot. The constantly rising standard of
living was because of the economic growth created.

Now we will all have to pay for the half wits that govern us called the
Tories - who are only interested in maintaining a ruling class strata which
this idiot is not a part of.

"harry" wrote in message
...

This one is a total senile idiot.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 30, 11:51 am, Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Andy Burns" wrote in message

o.uk...

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Labour inherited a basket case on 1997. The Tories inherited pretty
well
the strongest economy in the Western world.
YEAR : Surplus/deficit, £m : Party in power
1998 6,903 Lab
1999 17,474 Lab
2000 21,489 Lab
2001 19,646 Lab

You appear to have missed a few ...

Brainwashed one you never read did you!

2002 -6,978 Lab
2003 -18,944 Lab 2004 -19,817 Lab
2005 -17,405 Lab
2006 -6,964 Lab

Do you have to be so idiotic. That was small and was spending to reinstate
the neglected infrastructure.

2007 -7,776 Lab

This was the year of the Northern Rock bail out.

2008 -20,469 Lab
2009 -77,098 Lab

The Credit Crunch had hit and banks bailed out - as in all western
countries.

Read my post again and UNDERSTAND it!

Stop trying to be clever. You are not.

And don't forget the dockers and shipbuilders fiascos.


This one is a total senile idiot!

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , Doctor Drivel
wrote:

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2011-12-30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Strange. My memory gives a constantly rising standard of living and
financial stability for much of the 15 years or so of the last
labour
government.

Funded entirely by debt, leading to ...

That is tripe spouted by brainwashed Tory voting fool.

Labour inherited a basket case on 1997. The Tories inherited pretty
well the strongest economy in the Western world.

Stuff and nonsense. In 1997, inflation was at 2.5% and had been for at
least three years. Unemployment was falling fast. Source for both of
these? The Economist.

The economy was still a basket case.

Must be why Blair stuck to Tory spending plans initially then.

Fool, they soon changed that.

YEAR : Surplus/deficit, Ã,£m : Party in power
1991 -8,142 Con
1992 -29,259 Con
1993 -40,576 Con
1994 -36,268 Con
1995 -28,232 Con
1996 -22,749 Con
1997 -11,246 Lab
1998 6,903 Lab
1999 17,474 Lab
2000 21,489 Lab
2001 19,646 Lab

So your figures stop on 2001. Any particular reason for that - like
huge deficits building up from 2002 perhaps?

Nope. Small and controlled to get economic creating infrastructure
reinstated after 17 years of Tory neglect. The post CLEARLY states that.

Small and controlled my arse.

FACTS are FACT!!!! Small!!!!! You fool.

Find out how this country works and who are he greatest benefactors - not
you for sure.

Oh I know how it works. Labour screws the economy up,

Fool, the Tories did that I gave the figures.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:
On 2011-12-30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Strange. My memory gives a constantly rising standard of living and
financial stability for much of the 15 years or so of the last labour
government.

Funded entirely by debt, leading to ...

... the dire position the country is now in.

Because Labour

This one is a pervo.

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message ,
lid writes

"charles" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...

and how long do I have to spend at a recharging point?

With the Toshiba batteries, 80% recharge in a few minutes. Total
recharge no more than lining up at petrol pumps.

Let us assume

Do not assume. Find out.

Right - I did - The Mitsubishi has a 66BHP engine = 49KW. Battery is
only
16KWh - so at full power you get about 20 minutes motoring. And if you
go
for the 10 minute charge option (being developed) you will need a 150A
supply.

Actually worse than my assumed figures.

That 150A supply will be at a station. You can charge it slower at home.
"More slowly" - some people are thick.

Some people are thick!

"Terry Casey" wrote in message
...
In article , Doctor Drivel
says...

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Labour inherited a basket case on 1997. The Tories inherited pretty
well
the strongest economy in the Western world.
YEAR : Surplus/deficit, £m : Party in power
1998 6,903 Lab
1999 17,474 Lab
2000 21,489 Lab
2001 19,646 Lab

You appear to have missed a few ...

Brainwashed one you never read did you!

2002 -6,978 Lab
2003 -18,944 Lab 2004 -19,817 Lab
2005 -17,405 Lab
2006 -6,964 Lab

Do you have to be so idiotic. That was small and was spending to
reinstate
the neglected infrastructure.

2007 -7,776 Lab

This was the year of the Northern Rock bail out.

2008 -20,469 Lab
2009 -77,098 Lab

The Credit Crunch had hit and banks bailed out - as in all western
countries.

Strange, then, that only sterling was affected ...

No the Credit Crunch was world-wide and affected all. Didn't you know?

Read my post again and UNDERSTAND it!

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

Because Labour borrowed when there
was no need to borrow

Read my post fool. Labour did not borrow heavily!!!!! They have to borrows
to get the neglected infrastructure back to standard - it assists in
creating economic growth. Get it? Duh!

To clear up the mythical Gordon Brown big debt:

Below: Note that Brown in 2008 was spending about the same as Major in 1992
and far less than Thatcher in 1983.

http://i54.tinypic.com/wbow0i.png

Below: It's not the level of spending that's important it is the deficit -
the difference between spending and revenue. As long as the chancellor
raises enough in taxes to cover his spending over the cycle there's not a
problem. Also the deficit gives you the full picture of the effect of the
recession where quite naturally both spending rises and tax revenues fall.
This is a graph of the deficit also to 2010.

http://i53.tinypic.com/jug3z9.png

The deficit went up in both the early 80s and the early 90s, due to two
recessions. As we came out of them the deficit fell and turned to surplus.
Then the deficit rose in the early part of the last decade. The UK was in
the 'longest period of sustained growth since the Industrial Revolution. The
borrowing was to fund infrastructure totally neglected by the Tories. Record
hospital and school building went on. When the deficit rose again due to the
recession it rose to dangerous levels, forcing us to make painful cuts to
avoid the fate of other countries like Ireland. From the Guardian:

"9 facts which George Osborne doesn't want us to know because they expose
the fiction that Labour spent all the money":

Fact 1:
In 2008, the first year of the UK recession, seven of the eight European
economies with a higher GDP per capita than the UK (Austria, Finland,
Holland, Denmark, France, Germany and Sweden) also spent more as a % of GDP.
The single exception was Ireland, which not so long ago Osborne held up as
an example to the UK, and which has since suffered economic collapse.

Fact 2:
Average annual public spending as a % of GDP was lower in the years
1998-2010 (38%) than in the years 1980-1997 (40%) whereas average annual
taxation was the same at 36% of GDP.

Fact 3:
Public spending fell from 38% of GDP in 1997 to 35% in 2000. From 2000
onwards, the Labour government began to spend money on Tory neglected
run-down schools, roads, hospitals, etc. Thus public spending increased to
39% of GDP in 2007 - and then to 45% in 2010, as the effects of the
financial crisis took hold and the government rightly followed the Keynesian
rule that spending increases should be counter-cyclical.

Fact 4:
Margaret Thatcher described Blair as "my greatest legacy" because he had
rejected what she saw as Labour's core principle of "tax and spend".
Accordingly, Gordon Brown kept to the previous Conservative government's
spending plans for the first 3 years. But they had been elected to improve
neglected public services and so were committed to increase spending. Much
of New Labour's electoral success was due to its appeal to voters who wanted
it both ways - better schools and hospitals but no tax increases. Likewise,
much of the vitriol now directed at Gordon Brown comes from those same
fools.

Fact 5:
As for the structural deficit, this was only 3.5% of GDP when Brown left the
Treasury in 2007, compared to 4% in 1997 and an annual average of 5.5% in
the years 1992-1996. According to IFS data, the UK has run a structural
deficit for all but five of the last forty years. In fact, the last 3 Labour
governments managed to earn enough to cover their spending for 3 of their 13
years in office, whereas Thatcher and Major only managed balance the books
for 2 out of 17 years. Sure, austerity drones can blather on about economic
cycles, but the fact remains that New Labour's fiscal policies were little
different from those of the Thatcher and Major governments.

Fact 6:
Brown is often criticised for failing to reduce debt during an economic
upturn. Yet Labour reduced the national debt from 42% of GDP in 1997 to 35%
in 2008 - when it was lower than in 11 of the 18 years between 1979 and 1997
and lower than corporate debt (250% of GDP) and private debt (70% of GDP).
The national debt has been higher in 200 of the last 250 years than it was
in 2010, when it was 52% of GDP. In 1945 it was 237% of GDP and yet Attlee's
post-war Labour government was able to bear the costs of introducing the
welfare state and nationalising the railways, the public utilities and the
coal and steel industries. Maybe that was because in 1945 we really were
"all in it together".

Fact 7:
In 2010, the UK's national debt was the second lowest of the G7 countries
and, at less than 60% of GDP net of bank assets, was within Maastricht
Treaty limits. It is expected to peak at around 73%. Germany is already
above that level and is expected to exceed 80% in 2013. The debt levels of
Japan and Italy exceed 100% of GDP.

Fact 8:
In 2007, Cameron promised to stick to Labour's spending plans. Then came the
financial crisis, the damaging effects of which he now chooses to deny -
unlike Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, who told the Treasury
select committee that public spending cuts were the fault of the financial
sector (March 1st 2011). But it isn't surprising that Cameron is reluctant
to blame the banks, since he had previously criticised Gordon Brown for
regulating them too tightly - and more than half of the Tory Party's funding
comes from the City.

Fact 9:
Budget deficits are due to either excessive spending or an inadequate tax
take. Since it is clear that the problem is not the former (Facts 1-9), then
it must be the latter - which is around 36% of GDP compared to an EU average
of 40%, and is likely to be further aggravated when taxes are cut later
during this parliament to the benefit of high earners, corporations and
banks.

That Gordon Brown didn't overspend is indisputable. He did create the
longest period of economic growth since the Industrial Revolution. Remember
his nickname "Prudence" and the praise lavished on him by the Tory press?
New Labour's obsession with market liberalisation put it somewhere in the
middle on the scale of (in)competence, but on the same scale, the present
Tory rabble lie on the far side of disastrous.

The Tory press has managed to convince the nation Brown was responsible for
the Credit Crunch as well.

To the policies of the current rabble. If, by cutting hard, you cripple
growth by a roughly concommittant amount, then the cuts achieve little
except the redistribution of wealth from poor to rich - since public funds
are disproportionately spent on the poor.

There is data in the current financial figures to show this is indeed
happening.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:43:11 +0000 (GMT) Dave Plowman (News) wrote :
Strange. My memory gives a constantly rising standard of living and
financial stability for much of the 15 years or so of the last labour
government. Not the dire position the country is now in. Wonder just
how long Cameron will carry on blaming everyone else for this?

Yes, my personal balance sheet at the time I emigrated (Sep 2008) was
vastly better than when Labour came to power. I benefited significantly
from the big cut in company car tax on low CO2 cars and from cuts in
corporation tax, and when I making good money I reduced my mortgage as
fast as I could. I paid a lot of tax but 60% of something is a lot
better than 100% of nothing.

There's no denying that the last Labour government would have done well
to have exercised prudence g when the economy was on a roll rather
than spending more and more on borrowed money,

Myth created by right-wing Tory media. See my post of the Gordon Brown
spending myth.

but no one forced all
the individuals who did just this to do so. I had a conversation some
years back with my then MP, Vince Cable - can't remember the exact
subject but his point was that people were increasing their mortgages
on the back of increased house prices and spending the money on cars
and holidays. Until then (me being naive) it had never occurred to me
that people would be that stupid.

That is very wise in the current setup. Many people have £100,000 locked
into the "land" under their house. Re-mortgaging or better still a loan
payable on sale of house or death can release that value. How many people
have lived miserable existences when their home is worth a fortune and it is
left to parasite relatives.

And now the bill has to be paid they
blame the politicians.

Yes, to a degree for not introducing Land Valuation Taxation with NO Income
Tax. Then people will not speculation on land as they did. Land
speculation brought down the world economy. BTW, Vince Cable is a big fan.
The first stage of implementation was the mansion Tax, which the Tories
naturally threw out.

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On 30/12/2011 08:25, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in
message ...
On 29/12/2011 09:53, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in
message ...
On 23/12/2011 14:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Doctor wrote:
You are missing the whole point. It is not a plug in hybrid in
the previous sense.
The engine is not mechanically connected to the drive train.
It's like an electric car but you carry round a petrol
generator to charge the battery when required. Engine runs at
constant speed.

Using a highly taxed fuel to generate electricity? Very logical.

I've wondered about this. If you have an electric vehicle and
charge it at home using a generator, then you can use untaxed
fuel.

Charging from the mains is cheaper.

But not much use if you want to travel longer distances.

Dork, you have range extender if you constant.go long distances. Once
the charging infrastructure is in then no probs.

Pillock. I used charging with a generator as an example of a possible
anomaly in taxation rules. You came back and commented that mains is
cheaper (totally meaningless in the context - which you have removed
by snipping the following lines) and I commented that charging from
the mains is little use for longer journeys. You have then taken that
as me not understanding the idea of using a separate engine for long
journeys/recharging.


I suggest that you go back and re-read this
section of the thread before hurling abuse at people.

There is more chance of finding a couple of fairies at the bottom of the
garden than there is of Drivel reading and understanding anything.

This one is an uneducated fool. From Yorkshire as well.

"Jules Richardson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 07:49:12 +0000, Doctor Drivel wrote:
So, in the time it takes me to put enough liquid fuel into my fuel
tank to drive a few hundred miles, I can put enough electricity into
the battery to drive a few dozen.

Dope, you can drive a few hundred miles. Some people are so thick!

Using liquid fuel, yes I can do up to 500 miles on a single fill, using
batteries, nowhere near that.

Some are getting 200-300 mile range.

By driving to the nearest dealership and trading it in for something with
an IC engine?

A forum of fools.

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...
On 30/12/2011 07:58, harry wrote:
On Dec 29, 4:48 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 01:33:17 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

The weight of the on board capacitors would in itself be an energy
store (kinetic energy).

And how do they get up to speed - magic pixie beans?


Stupid boy. You don't get anything for nothing.
But storing kinetic energy is far more efficient than charging/
discharging batteries.

Kinetic energy stored as vehicle momentum is of no use for accelerating
the vehicle. At the time you need it it isn't there.

It's also of no use for climbing hills - the extra weight exactly cancels
out the extra KE.

Nonsense. Heavy trucks roll down hills and up the other side very well.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 30/12/2011 08:59, charles wrote:
In , Doctor Drivel wrote:

Dork, you have range extender if you constant.go long distances. Once
the charging infrastructure is in then no probs.

What is a "range extender"? Another battery? Where do you put it? On
the
back seat?

It's a fossil fuelled engine driving a generator that you use to replace
the power you draw from the battery. A.K.A. a hybrid drive train.

It is NOT a hybrid. It is not termed as one, as the engine is detached
mechanically from the driving wheels.

The range extender engines runs at the most economic "sweet spot". A genny
engines is lighter.

You could, of course, replace the whole drive train with an engine and
gearbox directly driving the wheels,

Oh my God. See above.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 30/12/2011 08:16, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
news
On 29/12/2011 18:25, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...

And the Ampera won't be as much fun.

Try the Tesla then. Or the new Jag with microturbine range extender.

We've covered the Tesla's limited range

200 miles. More with then latest batteries.

The Tesla website claims 200 kilometres, but what does 33% matter. Oh,
yes, two sixteen hour recharging stops instead of one on a run from London
to Edinburgh. You could, of course, put the Tesla onto a train (If the
service still ran, that is) and sleep all the way.

Dork..."200 miles. More with then latest batteries."

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 30/12/2011 10:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
The point was not the quality of manufacture, it was the performance.

FFS. Both batteries failed.

The better batteries are now available which they did not use.

Why would Tesla loan cars to be tested by Top Gear with faulty batteries?

My guess would be that the batteries tested good under normal conditions
before the show, but failed under the extreme stress of Top Gear's road
test. Normal road use and testing doesn't put anywhere near as much stress
on cars as TG do, and I've heard of other cars which failed in similar
circumstances, at least one of which was due to go for test immediately
afterwards by a motoring magazine. I believe the phrase "Stuffed into the
tyre wall" was used.

What they didn't show on the programme was the Tesla support team hovering
round all day, just in case, just as all the other manufacturers' support
teams do.

Top Gear is joke! It is for children. They make boats of cars. Yes they
do.Pathetic!!!

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message ,
lid writes

"harry" wrote in message
...

Only the "in favour" ones are likely to turn up at a meeting.

You are an idiot.
Your posts seem to consist mainly of "thick" 2idiot" "brainwashed" and
other such intellectual analysis.

Thank you.

Then you post very long texts of political philosophy, obviously not your
own work

All my own work.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article
,
Steve Firth wrote:
Because Labour borrowed when there was no need to borrow - at a time of
rising tax revenue. They also sold off British assets, such as gold
reserves, when the value of those assets was at an all time low. It's
financial mismanagement showing staggering incompetence.

'Selling off the family silver'

Perhaps you could remind me of who said that about whom?

I suspect you think that Harold Macmillan said it about Thatcher. You are
wrong. Macmillan did not say it at all,

Fool, he DID!!!!! He said it on breakfast TV at the time. I saw it.

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message ,
lid writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...

about the mass meetings of the 60s and early seventies and voting was by
show of hands.

Which was better than the first past the post system we have for
Westminster. All that does is ensure the unrepresentative Tories get into
power.
Funny, I seem to remember a few Labour governments over the last 70 years.
The electorate had the opportunity to change the system recently and the
result was a resounding no. I suppose you will insist they are all idiots
but that's universal suffrage for you.

Those how abstained or voted no were idiots for sure.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 30/12/2011 13:40, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
The Natural wrote:
Strange. My memory gives a constantly rising standard of living and
financial stability for much of the 15 years or so of the last labour
government.

Good grief. Which planet was this?

Your standard of living actually fell during this period? What were you
doing - resting?

Mine did, to a point where a lot of stuff that was originally regular and
easy to afford became irregular and "as and when I can afford it".

Total tripe!

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article
,
harry wrote:
I have never borrowed money for any reason so keep my name out of it!

Perhaps you should to get out of that rented property?

The unions thought they could topple the government and geta labour
gov.in.

Did they now. So you are against any form of action by anyone which might
effect an election?

They were wrong.
Labour govs. have always f****d up the economy.
It is a failed concept.

Strange. My memory gives a constantly rising standard of living and
financial stability for much of the 15 years or so of the last labour
government. Not the dire position the country is now in. Wonder just how
long Cameron will carry on blaming everyone else for this?

"There's no money left"
You cannot run a service economy and yo cannot sustain an economy by
inflating GDP with public sector borrowing and public sector jobs
indefinitely.

Brown never did that at all. Stop reading the Daily Mail.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...


"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

YEAR : Surplus/deficit, £m : Party in power
1991 -8,142 Con
1992 -29,259 Con
1993 -40,576 Con
1994 -36,268 Con
1995 -28,232 Con
1996 -22,749 Con
1997 -11,246 Lab
1998 6,903 Lab

Oh look the improving economy under the conservatives continued to get
better before NuLabore cocked it up.

1999 17,474 Lab
2000 21,489 Lab

And now the cockup takes hold and its all down hill.

2001 19,646 Lab

No wonder Maxie thinks you are an idiot.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...


"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...


Find out how this country works and who are he greatest benefactors - not
you for sure.

Well not me NuLabore stole a lot from my pension fund!

They never.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Just give it a few years of Tory cuts to find out what a basket case
really is. They've made a start already. Closing a local unit used for
treatment of those with addiction problems which isn't being replaced.

And that is without any cuts in NHS spending, just imagine what it would
have been like if labour had had another five years to screw up the
economy.

Another brainwashed idiot.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
hugh wrote:
In message ,
lid writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...

about the mass meetings of the 60s and early seventies and voting was
by show of hands.

Which was better than the first past the post system we have for
Westminster. All that does is ensure the unrepresentative Tories get
into power.
Funny, I seem to remember a few Labour governments over the last 70
years.
The electorate had the opportunity to change the system recently and the
result was a resounding no. I suppose you will insist they are all idiots
but that's universal suffrage for you.

Labour is for losers: This is the first lesson.

Says our snotty uni man.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

Not the dire position the country is now in. Wonder just how
long Cameron will carry on blaming everyone else for this?

Yeabut other bits of Europe aren't in that good a condition are they
Dave?..

Brown left the country in a better position than others and this fool
Cameron takes credit. But he has made millions unemployed in only 18
months.

wrote:


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

Not the dire position the country is now in. Wonder just how
long Cameron will carry on blaming everyone else for this?

Yeabut other bits of Europe aren't in that good a condition are they
Dave?..

Brown left the country in a better position than others and this fool
Cameron takes credit. But he has made millions unemployed in only 18
months.

Even by your standards, Drivel, that is ********.

Brown failed to regulate the banks and Blair dissappeared up his own arse
with his desire to become an "international statesman" (ie get involved in
everyone's wars).

--
Tim Watts

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 30/12/2011 13:40, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
The Natural wrote:
Strange. My memory gives a constantly rising standard of living and
financial stability for much of the 15 years or so of the last labour
government.

Good grief. Which planet was this?

Your standard of living actually fell during this period? What were you
doing - resting?

Mine did, to a point where a lot of stuff that was originally regular
and easy to afford became irregular and "as and when I can afford it".

Total tripe!

Prove it. I have the bank account records to prove my side of it.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Dec 30, 9:10*pm, Andy Champ wrote:
On 30/12/2011 07:58, harry wrote:

On Dec 29, 4:48 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 01:33:17 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

The weight of the on board capacitors would in itself be an energy
store (kinetic energy).

And how do they get up to speed - magic pixie beans?

Stupid boy. You don't get anything for nothing.
But storing kinetic energy is far more efficient than charging/
discharging batteries.

Kinetic energy stored as vehicle momentum is of no use for accelerating
the vehicle. *At the time you need it it isn't there.

It's also of no use for climbing hills - the extra weight exactly
cancels out the extra KE.

In fact I can't think of a use for extra mass at all. *Except in a road
roller.

Andy

But it can be used for charging batteries. Which is exactly what
happens in electric cars. In ICE cars, it is lost.
Bad news during cornering though.

On Dec 31, 12:41*am, Doctor Drivel wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

I have never lived in a rented building.

the
future.
The money used;
(a) Never existed at all,
(b) Was borrowed.

Now we will all have to pay for the half wits that governed us called
"New Labour". *It will take decades to get back to where we were. Even
supposing it's possible.



This one is total brainwashed idiot. *The constantly rising standard of
living was because of the economic growth created.

Now we will all have to pay for the half wits that govern us called the
Tories - who are only interested in maintaining a ruling class strata which
this idiot is not a part of.

There was no "economic growth". Just casino banking. Creating fake
money but no wealth. The countries industrial base withered. As did
education and society while Nl experimented with social engineering.
Total incompetance by Bliar and Brown.

Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
[snip]

I suspect you think that Harold Macmillan said it about Thatcher. You are
wrong. Macmillan did not say it at all,

Fool, he DID!!!!! He said it on breakfast TV at the time. I saw it.

You're a liar. You have cut Macmillans actual words from my reply. You did
not mark the edit that you made, making your lie deliberate and calculated.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
hugh ] wrote:
But how many of those eligible to vote were at that meeting?

Never actually counted them but in those days the meetings were
generally held in the open air just off site during lunch breaks so I
guess the turn out would be pretty high.

If, as is claimed, there was massive successful intimidation, surely those
wimps who couldn't stand up for themselves would simply stay away from the
meeting?

Those who did stand up for themselves in King Arthur's. Coal War continue
to suffer abuse and ostracism to this day. Calling those who didn't want to
see their families suffering because the bread winner was "a scab" wimps
shows a massive lack of understanding on your part or a massive dose of
cynicism if you were actually aware of how dissenters within the unions are
treated.

Bricks through your window on a daily basis tend to cause even strong
independent individuals to toe the line.