In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
We had a story in the local paper just before Xmas where a law firm was
advising employers (and practising themselves) not to have alcohol
fuelled Xmas parties as "employers were liable for their employees if
anyone did anything bad".

And the fact it saved them a great deal of money didn't occur to you?

For christs sake. When I was in the civil
service, an Xmas party involved a jolly good time and a certain amount
of arse related photocopying.

Only right that the taxpayer should pay for your booze?

No body minded and the women were as game as the blokes for some serious
joking. Noone shagged anyone and noone acted in an offensive way
because, well, people could get mashed without starting a fight...

Specsavers doing a two for one on rose tinted?

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

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

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
If you think about it, a common market also requires lots of other
things being equalised, if it is to have any chance of working.

No it does not with the stupid stuff like with the naming
of wines etc or how vacuum cleaners are done.

I never cease to be amazed about what makes some froth at the mouth.

--
*Two wrongs are only the beginning *

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

In article ,
Bod wrote:
On 12/02/2015 20:18, Clive George wrote:
On 12/02/2015 19:33, Bod wrote:

Where can I buy a straight banana these days or a slightly undersized
apple? I know it's naughty, but the EU says I can't buy them

Does the EU say that? Where?


Or was it cucumbers!....it was all over the news a lot, many moons ago.

Lots of things are in the news. Do you believe them all?

Supermarkets insist on only buying uniform fruit and veg from their
suppliers. Does this get your press into a lather too?

--
*The statement above is false

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
A financial sector that would almost certainly shift much of their
business to Frankfurt if the UK left the EU.

Odd that it was a lot biogger BEFORE we even ENTERED the EU.

I suppose it's too much to ask you for figures to support this?

--
*HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A CIVIL WAR?

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

In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
One has strong connections with the local area and good communication
skills.
The other has few local connections, and relatively poor communication
skills.

Which would you give the job to?

Most employers would give the job to the candidate who would accept the
lowest pay and the weakest contract.


Assuming, one would hope, both are capable of doing the job.

Now, if the second one is consistently getting the job over the first
one, then might that be because the first one is lacking in ability
and/ or motivation?

So what you're suggesting is that British business should ham-string
itself by being restricted to hiring only from the second-rate
candidates?

It already does.

Interesting that pretty well all the 'builders' I see round here working
on house conversion or renovation etc are now of Eastern European
extraction. And not just the labourers.

Isn't this exactly what any right winger wants - labour being supplied at
the lowest possible cost?

But, of course, right wingers also don't like Johnie Foreigner.

No wonder they don't know their arse from their elbow.

--
*Your kid may be an honours student, but you're still an idiot.

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

In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
I agreed with the decision to join the Common Market, but not the EU.

And if I'm a member of the EU, why do I have to show a passport to go
from England to France?

Because the UK government wants it that way.

--
*The beatings will continue until morale improves *

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Just as Thatcher was elected to do a specific task, take on and reduce
Union power for the good of the non Union nation, so UKIP will be
elected to do a specific job.

Are you really so stupid as to think UKIP will be elected with a working
majority?

Interesting you talk about Thatcher but UKIP rather than Farage.

--
*You can't have everything, where would you put it?*

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

On 13/02/15 14:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 17:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I have been around since 1950. I have never seen people ion general
more depressed and miserable than the last 5 years.

Obviously. A Tory government run riot cutting the living standards of
all but the richest. That has been their vision since Thatcher.

you really are a card. 15 years of Blair and 40 years of the EU has
destroyed peoples will to live.

You're not really into facts, are you?

Blair was PM for 10 years, not 15.

So I'd guess you're not interested in statistics about the average
standard of living from 1997 to date either?

what is a standard of livbing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_suicide_rate

I see no correlation between how many expensive toys you have and how
miserable you are.


You really should get your nose out of the Daily Mail.

I don't read the Daily Mail Dave.





It was worst under Blair.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 13/02/15 15:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Just as Thatcher was elected to do a specific task, take on and reduce
Union power for the good of the non Union nation, so UKIP will be
elected to do a specific job.

Are you really so stupid as to think UKIP will be elected with a working
majority?

No. I didnt say that. But you are determined to read into anythi8ng I
say whatever weird worldview it is your brain utilises

Interesting you talk about Thatcher but UKIP rather than Farage.

No. Interesting that you think its interesting tho.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 13/02/15 14:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
We had a story in the local paper just before Xmas where a law firm was
advising employers (and practising themselves) not to have alcohol
fuelled Xmas parties as "employers were liable for their employees if
anyone did anything bad".

And the fact it saved them a great deal of money didn't occur to you?

For christs sake. When I was in the civil
service, an Xmas party involved a jolly good time and a certain amount
of arse related photocopying.

Only right that the taxpayer should pay for your booze?

Did I say that? Well just for clarity, no they didn't. The point is,
noone minded that we brought our own in and had fun.

There may have been some sandwiches and nibbles laid on for free - but
that's no different to any other place of employment. With the rampant
wastage of money (caused by central government, not us), even a few
crates of champagne would have been a drop in the ocean...


No body minded and the women were as game as the blokes for some serious
joking. Noone shagged anyone and noone acted in an offensive way
because, well, people could get mashed without starting a fight...

Specsavers doing a two for one on rose tinted?


Not sure what world of friday night fisticuffs you inhabit, but I work
with civilised people and always have - even when everyone's mashed on a
Friday night.

On 13/02/2015 13:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/02/15 13:40, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
....
UKIP almost certainly does have a much higher percentage of sleazy
politicians than other parties. It is relatively new and it is going to
attract rejects from other parties and people, like a couple of ex-BNP
members I know, who see it as a way to get greater acceptance of their
extreme right wing views. Instead of blaming others for the party's
woes, you should be weeding out the bad apples before they are found
out. It is what other parties try to do.


Its relative newness and lack of chance to get people elected actually
means it has a far higher percentage of people who believe in its
principles than career politicians that infest the other parties.

I don't think that is true of either Labour or the Greens, not that I
would want the former (or indeed any party) in power for any great
length of time or the latter ever. However, even if you do have a large
proportion of true believers, that doesn't prevent there also being a
high proportion of sleazy politicians; to have both it only requires
that the complacent middle are less numerous.


--
Colin Bignell

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:36:33 +0000 (UTC), Adrian wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:18:45 +0000, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

'The alternatives to EU membership are unsatisfactory: they either give
Britain less control over regulation than it currently enjoys

I particularly like the suggestions that we should be more like
Switzerland or Norway.

So guns in every house, bells on cows, triangular chocolate and really expensive
beer?
--

On 13/02/15 16:41, The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:36:33 +0000 (UTC), Adrian wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:18:45 +0000, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

'The alternatives to EU membership are unsatisfactory: they either give
Britain less control over regulation than it currently enjoys

I particularly like the suggestions that we should be more like
Switzerland or Norway.

So guns in every house, bells on cows, triangular chocolate and really expensive
beer?


And trains that run on time (really they do - I was there). Buses too...

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

I was also annoyed the other night when I watched a programme about the HSBC money
laundering - and there was (I think) a taxman saying "and there's no good reason
someone could want to withdraw x-100,000 in cash".

Whilst I hate the tax fiddlers, that really ****ed me off. "No good reason???!!" Well,
yes there is a good reason - it's their money and they can take it about how they like.
Only at the point they fail to pay their taxes, do they break the law.

What he really meant was "We hate it when you make it hard to spy on everyone".

Makes me want to take my savings out, convert to gold kruggerands and hide them
literally all over the place.*

Indeed. I've held accounts with the same building society continually
now for around the past 40 years. The same actual branch although
obviously the staff and shoffittings change. In order to open a new
account by transferring money from another account to take advantage
of a better interest rate - all accounts are in the same name, same
address, with the same branch, I was first required to provide two
forms of ID.
And this wasn't just the assistant being over-zealous. She actually
showed me, and let me keep, which she shouldn't have done, the
internal checklist they have to follow when opening all
new accounts.


michael adams

....

"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
Interesting that pretty well all the 'builders' I see round here
working on house conversion or renovation etc are now of Eastern
European extraction. And not just the labourers.

Isn't this exactly what any right winger wants - labour being supplied
at the lowest possible cost?

But, of course, right wingers also don't like Johnie Foreigner.

No wonder they don't know their arse from their elbow.

It isn't very productive to think in such terms as "All right wingers
want this" and "No right wingers want the other", especially when you
haven't really considered what you mean by "right winger".

--
Les

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 13/02/15 14:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
We had a story in the local paper just before Xmas where a law firm
was advising employers (and practising themselves) not to have
alcohol fuelled Xmas parties as "employers were liable for their
employees if anyone did anything bad".

And the fact it saved them a great deal of money didn't occur to you?

For christs sake. When I was in the civil service, an Xmas party
involved a jolly good time and a certain amount of arse related
photocopying.

Only right that the taxpayer should pay for your booze?

Did I say that? Well just for clarity, no they didn't. The point is,
noone minded that we brought our own in and had fun.

Right. Is that how you interpreted the press article you commented on?

Does the fact that someone organises a party - but doesn't supply booze -
make them responsible for those who bring their own and over-indulge?
Would that same employer be responsible for someone snorting cocaine etc
in the washroom?

There may have been some sandwiches and nibbles laid on for free - but
that's no different to any other place of employment. With the rampant
wastage of money (caused by central government, not us), even a few
crates of champagne would have been a drop in the ocean...

Xmas parties at the places I worked at included as much booze as you could
sink for free.


No body minded and the women were as game as the blokes for some
serious joking. Noone shagged anyone and noone acted in an offensive
way because, well, people could get mashed without starting a fight...

Specsavers doing a two for one on rose tinted?


Not sure what world of friday night fisticuffs you inhabit, but I work
with civilised people and always have - even when everyone's mashed on a
Friday night.

Alcohol fuelled hooliganism is just as bad/good now as ever. Depending on
where you are. I've never seen a punch up at a works party either. But
that doesn't make for a good story in the press.

--
*My wife has a slight impediment in her speech. She stops to breathe.

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/02/15 15:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Just as Thatcher was elected to do a specific task, take on and reduce
Union power for the good of the non Union nation, so UKIP will be
elected to do a specific job.

Are you really so stupid as to think UKIP will be elected with a
working majority?

No. I didnt say that. But you are determined to read into anythi8ng I
say whatever weird worldview it is your brain utilises

"so UKIP will be elected to do a specific job."

Which part of that didn't you mean? I know you often have problems with
your keyboard, but that seems perfectly plain to me.


Interesting you talk about Thatcher but UKIP rather than Farage.

No. Interesting that you think its interesting tho.

I do like to try and understand what someone means. In your case it proves
impossible.

--
*I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing *

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

On 13/02/15 17:14, Big Les Wade wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
Interesting that pretty well all the 'builders' I see round here
working on house conversion or renovation etc are now of Eastern
European extraction. And not just the labourers.

Isn't this exactly what any right winger wants - labour being supplied
at the lowest possible cost?

But, of course, right wingers also don't like Johnie Foreigner.

No wonder they don't know their arse from their elbow.

It isn't very productive to think in such terms as "All right wingers
want this" and "No right wingers want the other", especially when you
haven't really considered what you mean by "right winger".


I support controlled immigration ergo I am right wing.

I also support the NHS ergo I am left wing.

I believe in the free market - right wing again...

But some stuff (eg banks) just HAVE to be regulated - oops left wing again.


I suspect most people are actually impossible to define as left or right
wing in the classical terms.

On 13/02/15 17:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Right. Is that how you interpreted the press article you commented on?

Does the fact that someone organises a party - but doesn't supply booze -
make them responsible for those who bring their own and over-indulge?
Would that same employer be responsible for someone snorting cocaine etc
in the washroom?

This stupid bunch seemed to think so - I'd hate to work for them...

There may have been some sandwiches and nibbles laid on for free - but
that's no different to any other place of employment. With the rampant
wastage of money (caused by central government, not us), even a few
crates of champagne would have been a drop in the ocean...

Xmas parties at the places I worked at included as much booze as you could
sink for free.

We had free wine at a dept meeting the other day, but that was extremely
exceptional - though noone actually got mashed, and several opted for
juice, it was a nice gesture (we had a good research assessment last
year that was pleasing some high ups).


Alcohol fuelled hooliganism is just as bad/good now as ever. Depending on
where you are. I've never seen a punch up at a works party either. But
that doesn't make for a good story in the press.


The nearest I ever heard of was someone that got very arsey with someone
else after work in the pub - and ended up getting the sack as
staff-staff nastiness was not tolerated even at informal gatherings. But
no punches were thrown.

Some interesting stories from other universities though....

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 13/02/15 09:55, john james wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 12/02/15 22:37, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
I am quoting from an impartial report by an independent organisation
that investigates the effects of migration

Ok, so who pays the salaries of this 'independent organisation' then?

Who pays Farage ?

All sorts of independent people

Easy to claim.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 13/02/15 10:18, Bob Henson wrote:
On 12/02/2015 8:43 pm, Capitol wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Capitol
wrote:

And don't tell me that the UKIP strategy is that after 5 years of
this
everyone will vote a UKIP govt in then believe me, there'll be
nothing
left.

So reelecting Camoron will solve all the problems? I'm with self
sufficiency and UKIP.

Th only way to get a referendum is to elect Cameron with a majority
govt. None of the leftwing (Greens, Labour, Libs, SNP) parties will
support that in a coalition.

And if Cameron gets such a majority and then says that because the EU
has agreed to a rebate of tuppence-ha'penny a year starting in 2050, he
no longer supports a referendum, he'd be dumped as leader the same day.


You really do believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, don't
you? Camoron will weasel out immediately if he had a majority. The only
hope is UKIP and a change at Westminster.


Absolutely. Cameron has no intention of getting out of the EU - he and
his cronies see hanging onto Frau Merkel's skirts (OK, she no more wears
skirts then the last couple of Germans who tried to take over Europe) in
the EU as their passport to hanging on to as much power as possible.
Like the even more sycophantic Froggies, he will be quite surprised when
she ditches them. Our only hope is in UKIP getting a sufficiently large
vote to force Cameron's hand. I think we can forget Labour as saviours,
and thankfully the Liberals may even more or less disappear after this
election - so it's up to Nigel.


Cameron will do what his puppet masters tell him

The EU favours at the moment the principle of raiding little taxpayers,
feeding it through big government and using that to force little
businesses out through regulations and thereby favouring big business that
can afford to buy the eurocrats and do the lobbying.

Right now big business likes the EU. Because what it likes is European
wide anticompetitive directives and what it doesn't like is little
businesses that are more efficient with better products springing up.

Ergo as long as the EU favours Big Money, the Tories will be bought lock
stock and barrel.

What is happening though, is that banks are beginning to worry about the
EU.

And the politicians are beginning to worry about it too, because it and
its big business chums are killing thge goose that laid te golden eggs,

Its energy policy makes it totally uncompetitive.
Its social policies make it totally uncompetitive.
Its social policies and its immigration policies render it a target for
'quiet invasion' by economic migrants
Its diversity policies make it unable to maintain a coherent culture in
the face of the above immigration
Its citizens are sick to death of being told what to do when it makes
things worse.


Britain may not need to leave the EU: The EU may well collapse first.

Not going to happen. The eurozone might, but the EU won't.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 13/02/15 10:44, Big Les Wade wrote:
Nightjar posted
They want to take us out of the EU for a start. They also don't seem
to have any polices, other than opposition to immigration and the EU.
That is not enough of a basis to run a country.

Do you really believe that UKIP's aim is to "run the country"? Is it not
clear to you that their purpose is to gain sufficient leverage to force
a referendum on EU membership?

First of all UKIP per se is not a unitary organism and different people
are in it for different reasons.


The common them however is that all who are in it find that whatever they
consider needs doing *cannot be dome on account of the EU*.

And largely even out of the EU, could not be be done without dismantling
fairly large swathes of existing QUANGOS etc.

So the aim is very simple: exit the EU and save a huge amount, then stop
funding useless NGOS and save a lot more - obviously the useless members
of those NGOS then become a social security burden, but any that are any
good will get jobs in a newly de regulated private sector that will
flourish because it has the minimum level of bureaucracy standing in its
way.

Or what actually happens when the banks are completely deregulated
is that the entire economy implodes very spectacularly indeed like it did
in 2008 and we end up with another Great Depression instead of the
worst recession we have seen since 1929.

Just as Thatcher was elected to do a specific task, take on and reduce
Union power for the good of the non Union nation,

That isn't what happened. That's what she decided to do once elected
and it was a pretty close run thing whether she got to do that too, it
was only the Falklands that saved her bacon and allowed her to do that.

so UKIP will be
elected to do a specific job. Reduce centralised government interference
and burden to improve economic productivity. Once done arguably UKIP has
no reason left to exist.

Have fun listing any example of any political group that has ever just
folded its tents and ceased to exist once its primary purpose was done.

There have been a few like the Communist Party that have imploded
up its own fundamental orifice right thruout the entire first and second
world, but that isn't because it achieved its aims and wound itself up
for that reason.

Once the UK is an independent self-governing nation again then politics
can resume its usual tawdry course: The difference being that the
politicians who subsequently get elected will have the power to carry out
any electoral promises and will be accountable for the results of their
meddling.

Didnt help Britain when Churchill did that with the return to
the gold standard at the wrong rate after the Great Depression.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

Not addressing this point specifically and replying to BLW for no good
reason other than, well, I was here anyway...

Isn't it interesting that any argument involving UKIP basically settles
out to a homogenous blend of:

1 Argumentum ad ignorantiam

2 Guilt by association

3 Argumentum ad populum

4 and a sprinkling of argumentum ad hominem


And these are used by both sides!

1 - Noone knows how competent UKIP would be in power until they actually
prove themselves (one way or another)

But when they can't even manage to come up with a policy
document that Farage can endorse, it's just a tad unlikely
that they will be able to run a country like Britain or even
manage to leave the EU if they do get elected to government.

2 - Some swivel eyed loons

This wouldn’t be you engaging in ad hominem, eh ?

were senior UKIP members (and there might
still be some). All groups, political or otherwise are guaranteed to have
a certain number of undesirables even if it is not in line with the
group's stated position. Look at the 2 main parties for plenty of
examples.

3 - Guaranteed in any political debate.

4 - well...



I say, if you like UKIP, vote for them. They clearly are not the EDL. And
if you think they are all swivel eyed loons, don't.

Or decide that they are very unlikely to ever get enough prepared
to vote for them to matter and so are completely irrelevant.

The most they might do is see Cameron do some
stuff differently than he would otherwise have
done, like he did with the Scottish referendum etc.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
If you think about it, a common market also requires lots of other
things being equalised, if it is to have any chance of working.

No it does not with the stupid stuff like with the naming
of wines etc or how vacuum cleaners are done.

I never cease to be amazed about what makes some froth at the mouth.

No one is frothing at the mouth, just pointing out that
your claim about REQUIRES is just plain wrong with those.

On 13/02/2015 5:26 pm, Tim Watts wrote:
On 13/02/15 17:14, Big Les Wade wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
Interesting that pretty well all the 'builders' I see round here
working on house conversion or renovation etc are now of Eastern
European extraction. And not just the labourers.

Isn't this exactly what any right winger wants - labour being supplied
at the lowest possible cost?

But, of course, right wingers also don't like Johnie Foreigner.

No wonder they don't know their arse from their elbow.

It isn't very productive to think in such terms as "All right wingers
want this" and "No right wingers want the other", especially when you
haven't really considered what you mean by "right winger".


I support controlled immigration ergo I am right wing.

I also support the NHS ergo I am left wing.

I believe in the free market - right wing again...

But some stuff (eg banks) just HAVE to be regulated - oops left wing again.


I suspect most people are actually impossible to define as left or right
wing in the classical terms.


Quite. I'm positively bolshie about some things, until we get to Laura
Norder and her deficiencies. I know a few who are extreme in both
political directions though, but the majority are a mixture, as you say.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

How do you get down from an elephants back? You don't, it comes from a duck.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
If you think about it, a common market also requires lots of other
things being equalised, if it is to have any chance of working.

No it does not with the stupid stuff like with the naming
of wines etc or how vacuum cleaners are done.

I never cease to be amazed about what makes some froth at the mouth.

No one is frothing at the mouth, just pointing out that
your claim about REQUIRES is just plain wrong with those.

So you don't understand the difference between 'lots' and everything?

--
*When chemists die, they barium.*

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

In article ,
john james wrote:
Just as Thatcher was elected to do a specific task, take on and reduce
Union power for the good of the non Union nation,

That isn't what happened. That's what she decided to do once elected
and it was a pretty close run thing whether she got to do that too, it
was only the Falklands that saved her bacon and allowed her to do that.

What was quite interesting was the idea - still in force now - that the
only reasons for strikes etc was a lack of true democracy in unions. The
majority being sheep lead by a few wolves.

Must admit the idea of the majority of hairy arsed miners (or whatever)
being bullied into something they didn't want by a handful seemed
ludicrous to me.

And the introduction of postal ballots etc made not the slightest
difference in practice.

Yet the same views are still expressed today.

Always seemed odd that MPs (and governments) are happy to be elected by a
small percentage of those eligible to vote - but want different rules for
others.

--
*HOW DO THEY GET DEER TO CROSS THE ROAD ONLY AT THOSE YELLOW ROAD SIGNS?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
If you think about it, a common market also requires lots of other
things being equalised, if it is to have any chance of working.

No it does not with the stupid stuff like with the naming
of wines etc or how vacuum cleaners are done.

I never cease to be amazed about what makes some froth at the mouth.

No one is frothing at the mouth, just pointing out that
your claim about REQUIRES is just plain wrong with those.

So you don't understand the difference between 'lots' and everything?

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
john james wrote:
Just as Thatcher was elected to do a specific task, take on and reduce
Union power for the good of the non Union nation,

That isn't what happened. That's what she decided to do once elected
and it was a pretty close run thing whether she got to do that too, it
was only the Falklands that saved her bacon and allowed her to do that.

What was quite interesting was the idea - still in force now - that the
only reasons for strikes etc was a lack of true democracy in unions. The
majority being sheep lead by a few wolves.

Must admit the idea of the majority of hairy arsed miners (or whatever)
being bullied into something they didn't want by a handful seemed
ludicrous to me.

And the introduction of postal ballots etc made not the slightest
difference in practice.

Yet the same views are still expressed today.

Always seemed odd that MPs (and governments) are happy to be elected by a
small percentage of those eligible to vote - but want different rules for
others.

There isn't really any viable alternative with MPs except
compulsory voting and that has real downsides too.

In article ,
"john james" wrote:

There isn't really any viable alternative with MPs except
compulsory voting and that has real downsides too.

What are they? I'd be interested to know -- I've always wondered what
we'd get in the way of government, if *everybody* exercised their right.

J.

"Another John" wrote in message
]...
In article ,
"john james" wrote:

There isn't really any viable alternative with MPs except
compulsory voting and that has real downsides too.

What are they? I'd be interested to know -- I've always wondered what
we'd get in the way of government, if *everybody* exercised their right.

The most obvious downside is that those who take no interest
in politics at all are forced to vote on something that they know
nothing about and that basically sees them with a real tendency
to vote for a name they at least recognise, which isn't necessary
a great idea with an MP, it may well just be the one with the
loudest voice who appears in the media most often.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
So you don't understand the difference between 'lots' and everything?

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Strange the way you say that just after you've failed to.

--
*Confession is good for the soul, but bad for your career.

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

In article ,
john james wrote:
Always seemed odd that MPs (and governments) are happy to be elected
by a small percentage of those eligible to vote - but want different
rules for others.

There isn't really any viable alternative with MPs except
compulsory voting and that has real downsides too.

Lots of viable alternatives. Getting rid of the first past the post
system, so all those who vote get at least some representation. Compulsory
voting with a 'none of the above' option. And so on.

--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
So you don't understand the difference between 'lots' and everything?

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Strange the way you say that just after you've failed to.

They reckon that bull**** baffles brains, not in here it doesn't
He should put a few more shrimps on the barbie and **** off, he could take
the silly PHucker with him.
..

Some terminal ****wit claiming to be
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
just the pathetic excuse for bull**** that's all it can ever manage.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
john james wrote:
Always seemed odd that MPs (and governments) are happy to be elected
by a small percentage of those eligible to vote - but want different
rules for others.

There isn't really any viable alternative with MPs except
compulsory voting and that has real downsides too.

Lots of viable alternatives. Getting rid of the first past the post
system, so all those who vote get at least some representation.

That isn't a viable alternative, it means that all governments
are coalitions and most of them are very unstable.

Compulsory
voting with a 'none of the above' option.

That doesn’t achieve anything. What are
you going to do if that particular vote is the
majority, not have anyone elected to that seat ?

And so on.

There is no and so on.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 19:02:29 +0000 Another John wrote :
In article ,
"john james" wrote:

There isn't really any viable alternative with MPs except
compulsory voting and that has real downsides too.

What are they? I'd be interested to know -- I've always wondered what
we'd get in the way of government, if *everybody* exercised their right.

Another one is that since everyone (in reality around 90% do) has to vote
(though you can spoil your paper) you can increase your vote by endlessly
attacking the other side. In the UK that might well increase the stay at
home vote.

I love nearly everything about living in Australia, with politics the key
exception.

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

In article ,
john james wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
john james wrote:
Always seemed odd that MPs (and governments) are happy to be elected
by a small percentage of those eligible to vote - but want different
rules for others.

There isn't really any viable alternative with MPs except
compulsory voting and that has real downsides too.

Lots of viable alternatives. Getting rid of the first past the post
system, so all those who vote get at least some representation.

That isn't a viable alternative, it means that all governments
are coalitions and most of them are very unstable.

Compulsory
voting with a 'none of the above' option.

That doesn’t achieve anything. What are
you going to do if that particular vote is the
majority, not have anyone elected to that seat ?

And so on.

There is no and so on.


Ok then. So explain why compulsory voting (or an absolute majority etc) is
ok when mooted for union matters?

--
*Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark *

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

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Some terminal ****wit claiming to be
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
just the pathetic excuse for bull**** that's all it can ever manage.


Look up 'denial'.

--
*I'm not a paranoid, deranged millionaire. Dammit, I'm a billionaire.

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

In article ,
"john james" wrote:

"Another John" wrote in message
]...
....
There isn't really any viable alternative with MPs except
compulsory voting and that has real downsides too.

What are they? I'd be interested to know -- I've always wondered what
we'd get in the way of government, if *everybody* exercised their right.

The most obvious downside is that those who take no interest
in politics at all are forced to vote on something that they know
nothing about and that basically sees them with a real tendency
to vote for a name they at least recognise, which isn't necessary
a great idea with an MP, it may well just be the one with the
loudest voice who appears in the media most often.

And Tim S wrote:

If the turnout goes down it's a sign that voters aren't interested.
That should be a real clue to politicians that something is wrong.


Thanks chaps: that's two very good reasons that I hadn't thought of.
The first, above, certainly points to politics becoming a dreamland for
the marketing industry -- who already have far too much of a
stranglehold on our lives |-

John