"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

Those who did stand up for themselves in King Arthur's. Coal War
continue to suffer abuse and ostracism to this day.

Stand up for themselves? You crap on their own. A scab is a scab
and I hope they pay all their lives.

Pillock.

Correct. They are pillocks as well as scabs.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Drivel believes in frictionless vehicles and no wind resistance.

I'll bet he thinks that supercapacitors hold their charge for ever, too,
and that you get everything you put into a battery back out.

Wow!

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

Your pension fund wasn't as good as mine. Mine had three different ways
of working out your pension. The worst was the final salary. The others
being the fund + credited interest and the fund + growth. Up until
NuLabore stole a lot of the fund the fund + growth returned more than
the final salary. You got to chose whichever was best when you retired.

Why do you think a pension fund - out of all types of savings - should be
immune from taxation?

It wasn't, they stole the tax and claimed the share growth would cover the
loss.
Just before they wrecked the economy.

If they had allowed it most people would have switched to ISAs which were
still tax free on their growth and when you spend them.


Now it is just final salary based which is less.

Perhaps you should have worked harder.

Perhaps they shouldn't change the rules without giving sufficient notice so
people can actually make up the difference.
All so they can bribe their stupid (who must be like drivel) supporters into
giving them another five years to cr@p all over everyone.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article
,
Steve Firth wrote:
Trying to continue being that bread winner didn't do them much good, now,
did it - given the mines were all closed? They hoped in vain that toadying
up to Thatcher would cause her to look after them as individuals. Which of
course didn't happen. I wonder if they'd have done the same again with the
benefit of hindsight.

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

Probably thrown by Mail reporters to make a good story.

You may want to get your head out of the sand and smell the coffee from
time to time.

Of course there is appalling behaviour by union members. And appalling
behaviour by non union members too. And management. And ordained priests
who fiddle with little boys.

One swallow does not a summer make, as they say.

I have lots and lots of experience of unions

As do I.

and never once saw any
intimidation.

You would, I guess, have been a member of one of the "luvvies" unions that
inter penetrate broadcast media. Generally about as effective as a paper
bag in a shower and largely existing only to pander the generally left wing
nature of all of the broadcast industry. Which I never quite understood
since the entire bunch are, in lifestyle, generally the most right wing
group in society.


Which is why I base my opinion that it was mextremely rare -

In your industry, possibly.

despite what the press wanted you to believe - and you obviously fell for
that hook line and sinker.

Repeatedly claiming that I get my opinion from the press when it comes from
personal experience won't do you any favours.

As regards those not wanting to join a union where that union was well
represented in a workforce, it was most usually a case of free loading.

Utter bull****.

The unions, by and large, held back those who could achieve and forced the
useless wasters to be paid exactly the same rate as those who worked and
ensured that if someone were so useless that the should have been sacked
that they were not. Not even if their colleagues wanted to get rid of them.

A closed shop meant that threat of expulsion from the union gave some
jumped up snot rag the power over the jobs of individuals. More power than
the managers had.

They knew they would get any benefits won by the union without having to
pay for it. Only a very very few had any genuine reasons for not wanting
to join

On the occasion that I refused to join it was because the union had stated
clearly that I and others like me would not be able to gain any benefit
from union membership.

And those were treated with respect by the union members, again
in my experience.

Ah well your experience seems to have been limited to what you wanted to
see. My experience is that half wits like Drivel predominate in unions.
Also the way that Walter Wolfgang was treated by Labour is typical of how
unions treat any dissent.

Jules Richardson wrote:

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 14:29:46 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Senile once again...for the hard of thinking....The Prius wasn't
designed to chase across the USA.

Nor did it, being the lead car. The one behind does the chasing.
What
*is* your first language? Apart from gibberish?

Sinclair BASIC, I think.

No - I used to be able to do *useful* things with Sinclair BASIC....

--
Tim Watts

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
But I've actually driven one. Up Shap on the M6. 50 mph flat out with
trucks hooting as they passed.

They can certainly do better than that, I have been overtaken by them
doing 80+.

Up Shap with a full load? I think not.

--
*Always borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back *

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

In article
,
Steve Firth wrote:
You would, I guess, have been a member of one of the "luvvies" unions
that inter penetrate broadcast media. Generally about as effective as a
paper bag in a shower and largely existing only to pander the generally
left wing nature of all of the broadcast industry. Which I never quite
understood since the entire bunch are, in lifestyle, generally the most
right wing group in society.

ETU and ACTT were 'luvvie' unions? Do you know what it means?

--
*Hang in there, retirement is only thirty years away! *

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

dennis@home wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...
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.

Extra mass in vehicles is never a good idea.
You need the lowest mass that will provide a safe environment for the
passengers and that is it.

Extra mass doesn't help when going up and down hills unless you think
doing 1 mph on the level and rolling down a hill up to 70(or whatever
the speed limit is) and then slowing down to 1 mph as you go up the
other side is actually useful. Driving at the speed limit means there is
nowhere to store any extra kinetic energy without speeding up which is
probably both illegal and dangerous.

Some tube train lines use this principle by having tubes that go down
between stations.

But its an expensive way to save electricity.

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Doctor Drivel
?@?.? scribeth thus
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

I think that people don't have much appreciation just how much "energy"
there is in a gallon of petrol. And just how much energy it takes to
shove a motor car of any decent size around.....
A largish car doing 70mph only uses about 20-30% of the power of the engine.
The surplus power is for acceleration.

Yes indeed.. How much power?..

id guess around 30 bhp, but its a guess.


Electric drive and kinetic brake
recovery using supercaps and a decent battery set can mean engines are much
smaller.

More weight to lug around and accelerate ..

Range extenders means the engines can be built light, small and
optimised to run at its sweet revving spot. All win, win.

Range extenders, do they run on Unobtainium?..


and magic pixie dust.

The way it is now going.

Zoooooooooooooooooooooooom

In the Dr's world of course...

In article , lid says...

dennis@home wrote:


Extra mass doesn't help when going up and down hills unless you think
doing 1 mph on the level and rolling down a hill up to 70(or whatever
the speed limit is) and then slowing down to 1 mph as you go up the
other side is actually useful. Driving at the speed limit means there is
nowhere to store any extra kinetic energy without speeding up which is
probably both illegal and dangerous.

Some tube train lines use this principle by having tubes that go down
between stations.

But its an expensive way to save electricity.

A bit of oversimplification there! Which would mean that long tube lines
would end up with a vast disparity in tunnel depth at the ends!

In practice, the method used is to build the stations on 'hills' in the
tunnel network with a sharp incline on the approach to assist fast
stopping and a longer, shallower gradient beyond the station to aid
rapid acceleration on departure.

I don't see how this is any more expensive than boring tunnels without
the gradients ...
--

Terry

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:04:32 -0000, Doctor Drivel wrote:

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.

facts, however true (or false) will never convince those if it doesnt fit
their preconceptions :-)
--
(º€¢.¸(¨*€¢.¸ ¸.€¢*¨)¸.€¢Âº)
.€¢Â°€¢. Nik .€¢Â°€¢.
(¸.€¢Âº(¸.€¢Â¨* *¨€¢.¸)º€¢.¸)

"Terry Casey" wrote in message
...
In article , lid says...

dennis@home wrote:


Extra mass doesn't help when going up and down hills unless you think
doing 1 mph on the level and rolling down a hill up to 70(or whatever
the speed limit is) and then slowing down to 1 mph as you go up the
other side is actually useful. Driving at the speed limit means there
is
nowhere to store any extra kinetic energy without speeding up which is
probably both illegal and dangerous.

Some tube train lines use this principle by having tubes that go down
between stations.

But its an expensive way to save electricity.

A bit of oversimplification there! Which would mean that long tube lines
would end up with a vast disparity in tunnel depth at the ends!

In practice, the method used is to build the stations on 'hills' in the
tunnel network with a sharp incline on the approach to assist fast
stopping and a longer, shallower gradient beyond the station to aid
rapid acceleration on departure.

I don't see how this is any more expensive than boring tunnels without
the gradients ...

I can, unless the trains only run one way.
You would need two tunnels to do it in both directions.

On 31/12/11 15:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Why do you think a pension fund - out of all types of savings - should be
immune from taxation?

Why should any saving be taxed? I've already paid tax when I earned it.
and will pay tax (VAT) when I need to spend it.


--
djc

In article om,
says...

"Terry Casey" wrote in message
...
In article , lid says...

dennis@home wrote:


Extra mass doesn't help when going up and down hills unless you think
doing 1 mph on the level and rolling down a hill up to 70(or whatever
the speed limit is) and then slowing down to 1 mph as you go up the
other side is actually useful. Driving at the speed limit means there
is
nowhere to store any extra kinetic energy without speeding up which is
probably both illegal and dangerous.

Some tube train lines use this principle by having tubes that go down
between stations.

But its an expensive way to save electricity.

A bit of oversimplification there! Which would mean that long tube lines
would end up with a vast disparity in tunnel depth at the ends!

In practice, the method used is to build the stations on 'hills' in the
tunnel network with a sharp incline on the approach to assist fast
stopping and a longer, shallower gradient beyond the station to aid
rapid acceleration on departure.

I don't see how this is any more expensive than boring tunnels without
the gradients ...

I can, unless the trains only run one way.
You would need two tunnels to do it in both directions.

But you still need two tubes (tubular tunnels) if there were no
gradients!

Perhaps you should refresh your knowledge of the (London) tube system?

--

Terry

In message ,
lid writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message ,
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!
Oh come on. Is that the best you can do? You've even missed out the
daily mail reader bit.
--
hugh

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
I also recall one of the car comics doing a cost-to-coast US trip in a
Pious. The American chase car did better mpg.

It wasn't designed to chase across the USA.

The chase car wasn't designed to chase?

Senile once again...for the hard of thinking....The Prius wasn't
designed to chase across the USA.

Nor did it, being the lead car. The one behind does the chasing. What *is*
your first language? Apart from gibberish?

Drivel?
--
hugh

In message , Andy
Burns writes
Doctor Drivel wrote:

This was the year of the Northern Rock bail out.
The Credit Crunch had hit and banks bailed out - as in all western
countries.

And where do the pensions tax credit grab, 3G licence auction and oil
windfall tax fit in?

Apart from the "prudence period" during their first term, the deficit
was a runaway train.
And don't forget the sell off of eh gold reserves at the lowest price
for ages.
--
hugh

In message m,
"dennis@home" writes


"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!
I could have retired with 50% more pension if the idiots had not voted
for NuLabore.
They also raided the National Insurance pension Fund by transferring its
£50bn surplus from guilts into an account with the commissioner for
national debt. Brown also transferred about £2.5bn per annum from its
revenue stream directly to the treasury under the guise of Green taxes.
--
hugh

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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.

There can be various reasons behind that regardless of how well the fund
was or was not managed. Maybe your pension could have been even better
if it hadn't been for the tax, unless of course you are on a final
salary scheme.
--
hugh

In message , Tony Bryer
writes
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.

Because the regulations at the time in some cases prevented it.
--
hugh

Terry Casey wrote:
In article , lid says...
dennis@home wrote:

Extra mass doesn't help when going up and down hills unless you think
doing 1 mph on the level and rolling down a hill up to 70(or whatever
the speed limit is) and then slowing down to 1 mph as you go up the
other side is actually useful. Driving at the speed limit means there is
nowhere to store any extra kinetic energy without speeding up which is
probably both illegal and dangerous.
Some tube train lines use this principle by having tubes that go down
between stations.

But its an expensive way to save electricity.

A bit of oversimplification there! Which would mean that long tube lines
would end up with a vast disparity in tunnel depth at the ends!

In practice, the method used is to build the stations on 'hills' in the
tunnel network with a sharp incline on the approach to assist fast
stopping and a longer, shallower gradient beyond the station to aid
rapid acceleration on departure.

I don't see how this is any more expensive than boring tunnels without
the gradients ...


doesn't work well in the reverse direction ..if it ain't symmetrical.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:


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

Your pension fund wasn't as good as mine. Mine had three different ways
of working out your pension. The worst was the final salary. The others
being the fund + credited interest and the fund + growth. Up until
NuLabore stole a lot of the fund the fund + growth returned more than
the final salary. You got to chose whichever was best when you retired.

Why do you think a pension fund - out of all types of savings - should be
immune from taxation?

They are strategic long term savings subject to many restrictions and
controls by the revenue. In return you get tax relief on contributions
and when invested in stocks and shares your fund was not subject to tax
like other investments to help your fund grow. That way you were less
likely to be dependent on the state when you retired.
--
hugh

In message om,
"dennis@home" writes


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

Your pension fund wasn't as good as mine. Mine had three different ways
of working out your pension. The worst was the final salary. The others
being the fund + credited interest and the fund + growth. Up until
NuLabore stole a lot of the fund the fund + growth returned more than
the final salary. You got to chose whichever was best when you retired.

Why do you think a pension fund - out of all types of savings - should be
immune from taxation?

It wasn't, they stole the tax and claimed the share growth would cover
the loss.
Just before they wrecked the economy.

If they had allowed it most people would have switched to ISAs which
were still tax free on their growth and when you spend them.


Now it is just final salary based which is less.

Perhaps you should have worked harder.

Perhaps they shouldn't change the rules without giving sufficient
notice so people can actually make up the difference.
All so they can bribe their stupid (who must be like drivel) supporters
into giving them another five years to cr@p all over everyone.
For people with SIPS pensions they have changed the rules AFTER you've
retired - and subjected the residual value to55% inheritance tax, the
highest tax in the system.
--
hugh

In message , Tim Lamb
writes
In message , Tim
Streater writes
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.

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
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?

So far (unless I missed it) PFI has not been mentioned. ISTM that this
is *off the books* expenditure and ought to be included in GB's record.

regards


Very true. That's how all the infrastructure was to be paid for - by
lumbering the next generation with debt levels comparable to 1945, which
we'd only just paid off.
The final example was the Thameslink train contract
--
hugh

In message , Andy
Burns writes
Tim Lamb wrote:

So far (unless I missed it) PFI has not been mentioned. ISTM that this
is *off the books* expenditure and ought to be included in GB's record.

Also QE, another handy way of "magicing" money into the economy
(granted the coalition have continued with new tranches), will the BoE
ever buy back all the bonds it bought with QE funds? If so won't that
hurt the economy later to the same degree it's supposed to have helped it?
Yes, eventually it leads to inflation
--
hugh

In message ,
lid writes

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
-septemb
er.org...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message

-septem
ber.org...
[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.

Macmillan said it!!!!!! You fool.

Are you Mr T in disguise?
--
hugh

In message ,
lid writes

"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.

It was all smoke and mirrors. An artificially inflated GDP produce by
borrowing and government spending.

Remember the infamous note - There is no money left.
--
hugh

In message ,
lid writes

"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.
I was wondering when the Daily Mail would resurface. If the percentage
of people on this newsgroup that you claim are daily mail readers is
extrapolated across the population they must have one hell of a
circulation.
--
hugh

In message ,
lid writes

"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.
Most of them doing total non-jobs in the public sector created by labour
in order to buy votes.
--
hugh

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
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).

And where is the emergency legislation brought in immediately by the
Tories to regulate the banks? Pigs might sooner fly...

Responsibility for that particular item lies with - err - Vince Cable
who is not a Tory though he may of course be a Daily mail reader but I
couldn't possibly comment.
--
hugh

In message , Tim Watts
writes
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
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).

And where is the emergency legislation brought in immediately by the
Tories to regulate the banks? Pigs might sooner fly...


That's because the Tories are the bankers' friend. One *might* have expected
different from Browm (cue pigs again)

Think a bit about the banking crisis in the UK and which banks needed
state aid.
Bradford & Bingley. Small bank, of no consequence, but based in Labour
heartland
Northern Rock small bank of no consequence, but based in Labour
heartland.
HBOS large bank, but based in two Labour heartlands.
RBS large bank destroyed by it's own ego, - but based in Gordon Brown
heartland.
Banks which didn't need state aid.
LLTSB perfectly sound and immune to the credit crunch - until it was
****ed up by the merger with HBOS cooked up by Brown and his mate the
Chairman, even concealing from the shareholders, the owners of the bank
the secret loans already given by the government to HBOS.
Barclays -no state aid needed
Santander - no state aid
HSBC - no state aid
Yorkshire Bank - no state aid
Co-op bank - no state aid.

Gordon Brown saved the world? Don't make me laugh.

--
hugh

In message , Tony Bryer
writes
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.
The statistic don't support that.
There have been substantial repayments of mortgage debt as a result of
current ridiculously low interest rates.
This has been to the detriment of savers (generally older people) who
have seen their incomes fall drastically
--
hugh

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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?

Err no. staying away was not "allowed" either.
--
hugh

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
charles wrote:
And I'm saying it is in the main nonsense. The industries were already
dead on their feet due to massive under investment

[Snip]

when a company invests in a facility it expects to see a return on the
capital invested.

Of course.

That might mean (as it did with newspapers) that jobs
would be lost. Unions fought to keep all their members employed, so
investment did not take place.

Strange. I thought that investment did take place - or is Wapping a
figment of my imagination?

With the likes of BL and others, any investment in plant had been returned
many many times over. The time to invest in new models and equipment was
when they could sell every car they made - not wait until their sales
declined due to being completely overtaken in design etc by the
competition. A position near impossible to recover from. Exactly as has
happened to SAAB - without any 'interference' from unions.

Certainly there were serious management failures in the BMC days. Stokes
was totally inadequate for the job of sorting out all the factions in
management each protecting their own little fiefdoms. Just look at the
variants of Mini that were produced.
The only profitable bit, Land Rover was totally starved of investment.
--
hugh

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
The unions I've been involved in (broadcast) grab all new technology
gladly. Then once it is established negotiate on the implications.

Meaning what? You mean as in, gosh, we have to use this new
technology now, so we deserve more money?
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.

And probably without sitting whinging about not being trained.
--
hugh

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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.

So it is driving a truck - no two journeys are ever the same.
--
hugh

In message , John Williamson
writes
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.

You could, of course, replace the whole drive train with an engine and
gearbox directly driving the wheels, but that's not "green", even when
it used less energy overall than the hybrid.

Maybe it could be fixed using a supercapacitor.

Mounted on the hard shoulder?
--
hugh

dennis@home wrote:


"Terry Casey" wrote in message
...
In article , lid says...

dennis@home wrote:


Extra mass doesn't help when going up and down hills unless you think
doing 1 mph on the level and rolling down a hill up to 70(or whatever
the speed limit is) and then slowing down to 1 mph as you go up the
other side is actually useful. Driving at the speed limit means
there is
nowhere to store any extra kinetic energy without speeding up which is
probably both illegal and dangerous.

Some tube train lines use this principle by having tubes that go down
between stations.

But its an expensive way to save electricity.

A bit of oversimplification there! Which would mean that long tube lines
would end up with a vast disparity in tunnel depth at the ends!

In practice, the method used is to build the stations on 'hills' in the
tunnel network with a sharp incline on the approach to assist fast
stopping and a longer, shallower gradient beyond the station to aid
rapid acceleration on departure.

I don't see how this is any more expensive than boring tunnels without
the gradients ...

I can, unless the trains only run one way.
You would need two tunnels to do it in both directions.

You've obviously never used the Underground then. That's *exactly* how
it works.

If you travel on the Paris metro, the stations are close enough together
that you can often see the slight dip between them. It reduces the
peak power requirement and the braking effort needed, and although it's
not as effective as the proper profile, every little helps when you're
running trains at two minute headway.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:



doesn't work well in the reverse direction ..if it ain't symmetrical.

^^
as
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Nonsense. Heavy trucks roll down hills and up the other side very well.

Yet another example to prove you can't even drive.

Trucks on a motorway run at a constant governed speed. If they haven't got
enough power, they slow down on hills. Hence crawler lanes. Any kinetic
energy can safely be ignored in practice.

When going down hill the brakes may be applied to prevent them exceeding
the governed speed so there is little excess KE to carry them forward.
--
hugh