In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
It's also odd that some insist on secret ballots where they feel ever so
sure it would benefit their narrow views, but on one of the most
fundamental principles of UK justice, the jury system, such a vote is
open.

I don't think the *show of hands* in the jury system is that close to
either a union decision or parliamentary procedure. The jurors have no
interest in the outcome.

Could you explain your logic behind that comment?

Have you escaped jury service?

Basically the elected foreman chairs the discussion which generally goes
over the summing up given by the judge. Jury members are each invited to
put forward their own views of the case. The average jury will have
members from all walks of life and initially views diverge dramatically.
Gradually views change as the arguments continue. From time to time, the
foreman will ask for a show of hands guilty/not guilty/undecided. The
*no interest in the outcome* is a requirement of jury selection. If the
jurors are biased then the trial result is unsafe.

Basically they wish any goalposts moved in an attempt to get the result
they want. Regardless if it is a majority view or not.



--
Tim Lamb

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 21/07/15 17:40, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:05:40 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Crikey. And you don't think the crappy design of much of the product
mattered?

I'll give you a clue. The Japanese made their reputation by selling
pretty ordinary cars which were designed to last their service life
without breaking down.

We're clearly thinking of different 1970s Japanese cars. The ones I'm
thinking of rotted even worse than their contemporary European rivals -
and that really was saying something.

It was into the '80s when the Japanese motor industry really started to
become a force to be reckoned with. About a decade after BL's nadir.

yeah. German cars were then built to run all day at 100mph/full throttle.

The Beetle couldnt. Couldnt even do 100mph at all.

Uk cars were not.

But then the Germans didnt have to pay back any war debt, or indeed
safeguard W Europe with any armaments.

Irrelevant to how their cars were designed.

They just got free US money to
rebuild industry and we had to pay enormous debts to the yanks.

Because Britain declared war over Poland.

In essence we paid Germany for losing the war.

Nope, And the yanks ensured that there wouldnt
be another world war with the Marshall Plan.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote

Easy to claim...

Just stick to the alligators chum.

A subject you might at least have been expected to
know something about.

On second thoughts, forget about the alligators as well.



michael adams

....

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:33:06 +0100, michael adams wrote:

Given the state of the UK economy in the 1970s, who can blame her?

If it was all caused by unions, what accounts for the present mess?

Sorry, are you suggesting they're even vaguely comparable?

At the moment, the taxpayer is subsidising employers profits to the tune
of £76 billion per annum, as a result of the starvation level wages
being paid to their non union workers

Small problem with that claim - the legal minimum wage is already about a
quid an hour above the "living wage" for a couple, both working full
time, no kids.

I notice you've snipped the quote I included, which was taken directly
from
Rupert Murdoch's "Sky News".

So here it is again, with the link

" There are some estimates that whilst £8bn on benefits goes to the
unemployed,
an estimated £76bn goes to people who are working."

http://news.sky.com/story/1513826/wo...f-welfare-cuts

I include the link so you could check for yourself that nothing is being
made up.

So are you saying that Rupert Murdoch's "Sky News" are lying ?

Just getting it wrong like most journos do.

Or that their figures are correct,

No they are not.

but that the UK Govt has made some sort of "mistake" in doling out £76
billion of taxpayers money, when you've proved it here on UseNet that they
needn't have done ?

It’s a choice any govt can make whatever the actual value.

So which is it ?

A Murdoch lie, or a big Government mistake ?

It isn't that binary.

The other small problem, of course, is that it has nothing to do with the
actual question.

The actual question was whether the UK is presently in a mess comparable
to that which existed prior to Thatcher.

Yes, and it clearly isn't.

I'm suggesting that any country that has to subsidise low wages to the
extent of 76bn a year with taxpayers money,

It doesn’t HAVE TO do anything of the sort.

is most definitely in a mess.

Fantasy.

With a government which is clearly in the pockets of a small minority of
employers to the exclusion of everybody else.

How odd that the absolute vast bulk of what SkyNews
claims was actually paid by Labour, not the current govt.

Which is a situation which can't last indefinitely

Doesn’t need to. The **** doesn’t hit the fan as spectacularly
as that very often at all. The last time was almost a hundred
years ago now.

and which nobody should welcome whoever they are.

We have in fact handled the **** hitting the fan
this time MUCH better than we did in the 1930s.

And the reason that the current welfare is unsustainable
is because Labour was stupid enough to deregulate the
banks and as a result the govt had to bail out the worst
of the banks and that has to be paid for somehow.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 12:03:25 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
But you do realise secret ballots for any kind of industrial action
have been the law for some 30 years now?

yes and that's why I believe in secret ballots beign done the way
the are now. Because a person can be intimidted either way to raise
or not raise your hand for any vote.

Take the miners. A hard and dangerous job. But they are easily
intimidated by a few militants.

Wouldn't know myself, I've not be a miner. I remeber this and I would
certainly be intimidated by the few or one that did this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2512469.stm

What has that got to do with intimidation at a show of hands vote?



Does this ring true to you, dave?

Does what ring true ?


Would you personally be easy to intimidate by a few when surrounded by
your pals?

That makes little sense if any sense.

How? It's been said here that on a show of hands vote, many will be
intimidated into voting yes by a few militants. Hence the need for secret
ballots. I just asked if it would apply to you. Or any others on here.


As it depends on the strenght of your pals too. Not that Hitler being
one person could intimidate anyone !

In his early days, Hitler managed to get majority
support through the strength of his oratory.

More due to how pathetic the alternatives were.

Didn't need to intimidate anyone

But did anyway, most obviously with the street warfare.

- although he obviously did later.

Not as far as voting was concerned, he didn’t bother with
letting anyone vote once he got to drive the kraut bus.

And the intimidation was BEFORE he got majority support as well.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Take the miners. A hard and dangerous job. But they are easily
intimidated by a few militants.

I bet it would be easy to intimidate you, all they need do is chuck a
few bricks through your house windows, why would a miner care less about
his family than you (probably) do?

Not surprisingly you are missing the point.

Miners and others were said to be intimidated at a 'show of hands vote'
into voting for action they didn't want to, by a few militants. Hence the
need for a secret vote.

Or are you suggesting they knew they'd get a brick through their window if
they voted against?

Corse they did and secret ballots eliminated that possibility.

"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

Don't be a sap. D'ye think that in the 50s/60s, people were not getting
fed up with unions, wild cat strikes, sympathy strikes, picket lines,
flying pickets, closed shops, and possibly other things I have
forgotten?

The majority of self styled working class people certainly weren't getting
fed up with unions, wild cat strikes, sympathy strikes, picket lines,
flying pickets, closed shops or any of those things.

Apart from some affluent factory workers in the south in the late 30's
and factory workers on piece rates during the war the 50's and 60's were
the first and only time when that section of the population ever got what
they
regarded as their just deserts.

By that you mean they wanted more. Wota surprise.

But as with the middle class houswives who tired of post war rationing

Even sillier than you usually manage.

and made their voices felt and eventually succeeded in unseating Labour,

Labour didn’t lose because of post war rationing and middle
class housewives didn’t vote Labour before that anyway.

there's no doubt that middle class differentials were being undermined in
the 60's.

It would be more accurate to say that the working class was
a lot better paid in the 60s than they had been before that.

Maggie got in because people had had enough.,

They'd had enough of "Sunny Jim", that's true enough. Who was forever
promising to deliver the unions and was failing to do so. His Heathrow
press conference following the Guadaloupe summit, regaling shivering
reporters in a winter bound Heathrow with his tales of swimming in the
warm Caribbean between sessions is what prompted Larry Lamb to run to the
wholly aprochryphal "Crisis what Crisis ?" headline in the next day's
"Sun".

Elections are there to be lost as well a won and it was a combination of
a wholly complacent "Sunny Jim" who should have gone in the autumn
but didn't, and accelerated and guaranteed Council House sales, what
swung it.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:56:25 +0100, michael adams wrote:

So are you saying that Rupert Murdoch's "Sky News" are lying ?

Frankly, I'd double-check the date, let alone the weather forecast.

But I snipped it because it was irrelevant, as I explained in the post
you've just replied to.

The other small problem, of course, is that it has nothing to do with
the actual question.

The actual question was whether the UK is presently in a mess comparable
to that which existed prior to Thatcher.

Correct.

And you chose to ignore it.

Here's some clues...

Three-day week. Winter of discontent. 24% inflation. Sterling
devaluation. IMF bailout.


And here's my clue. What do you think the current rate of Unemployment
would be
right now in the UK, if employers weren't being subsidised to the tune of
£ 76bn to keep people off the dole ? Jobs which in many instances
presumably wouldn't even exist ?

So much for "Labour Isn't Working".

Despite already using up £billions of oil revenue to what purpose exactly
?

Today's News

quote

Draw up 40% cuts plans, ministers told

Some government departments are told to prepare for a 40% cut in their
budgets
as Chancellor George Osborne launches his spending review.

/quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news

This is what you mean, I take it, by "successful government"

Corse it is with a govt that pulls the plug on the most
inefficient govt departments that are doing sweet **** all.

Or maybe to quote from a much quoted film

"I'm All Right Jack, so that's O.K ?"

The whole country is doing ok given that the unemployment
rate is one of the lowest in europe with the majors.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 19:40:18 +0100, michael adams wrote:

" According to a survey of social attitudes, 57% of adults in the UK
claim to be working class. "

Lovely, an' all.

So if that had anything at all to do with supporting unions, how come in
2005 only 35% voted Labour, in 2010 29%, and this year 30%?

Presumably because those that bothered to vote decided that
Labour had no policies that were of any use to the working
class or because they decided that it was Labour that was
stupid enough to deregulate the banks and then had to
bail the worst of them out.

So how big do you think the majority was,in the 50's,60's,and 70's ?

I neither know nor care.

"Working class" might have actually _meant_ something in the '50s, but
even by that stage it was an anachronism. By the '60s it was becoming
increasingly irrelevant, and by the '70s it was almost entirely ********.

No it isn't. Those who do the most menial work are clearly the working
class.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote

Easy to claim...

Just stick to the alligators chum.

A subject you might at least have been expected to
know something about.

On second thoughts, forget about the alligators as well.

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

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , JHY
wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


They just got free US money to rebuild industry and we had to
pay enormous debts to the yanks.

Because Britain declared war over Poland.

Ah, so WW2 was all our fault.

No, but when you declare war, it is reasonable
to have to pay for the cost of winning that war.

Clearly attempting to make Germany pay for the war it
started didnt work after WW1 and just produced WW2.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


Some government departments are told to prepare for a 40% cut in their budgets
as Chancellor George Osborne launches his spending review.

/quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news

This is what you mean, I take it, by "successful government"

Corse it is with a govt that pulls the plug on the most
inefficient govt departments that are doing sweet **** all.


After five years in office ?

So what's Osborne been doing for the past five years ?

What's been so successful that he's suddenly found that
he has to cut yet another 40% ?

Its a shame Mr Success didn't announce this successful strategy before
the General Election don't you think ?

Why do you think that was ?


michael adams

....

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

" There are some estimates that whilst £8bn on benefits goes to the unemployed, an
estimated £76bn goes to people who are working."

the quote is from Rupert Murdoch's Sky News

Just because one of Murdoch's **** rags claims something...

Sky News aren't the only source. They were simply selected
as being less open to accusations of anti-tory bias.

Murdoch's "**** rags" don't normally lie in order to diss his
chosen administrations. That's the point.


michael adams

....

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

But as with the middle class houswives who tired of post war rationing

Even sillier than you usually manage.

and made their voices felt and eventually succeeded in unseating Labour,

quote

Political reaction

In the late 1940s the Conservative Party exploited and incited
growing public anger at rationing, scarcity, controls, austerity
and government bureaucracy. They used the dissatisfaction with
the socialistic and egalitarian policies of the Labour Party to
rally middle-class supporters and build a political comeback
that won the 1951 general election. Their appeal was especially
effective to housewives, who faced more difficult shopping
conditions after the war than during it.[38]

/quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ration...United_Kingdom


quote

The British Housewives' League is a right-wing, non-party group
that seeks to act as the voice of the British housewife, providing
advice and encouraging active participation in society.

The League was founded by Irene May Lovelock,[2] née Northover-Smith
(1896-1974), who became its first chairman.

Post War 1946 Bread Rationing & Nationalisation
At its peak the League claimed over 100,000 members,and their
collective voice was felt in many rallies against post war bread
rationing. After six long years, this frustration with austerity
and state control became a very political issue,particularly among
women who, fed up with rationing, longed for some purchasing power and
freedom of choice. Meat, bacon, butter, sugar, eggs, tea, cheese,
milk, sweets, clothes, petrol were all still restricted.

It was this fallout with the Labour (Attlee) Government that led to
political change, since many women turned to the Conservative party.
Their subsequent election victory in 1951 became for many a statement
of discontent with Labour. As one woman expressed it, ‘the last
election was lost mainly in the queue at the butcher’s or the grocer’s’[9]

quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...ives%27_League




Labour didn’t lose because of post war rationing

See above


and middle
class housewives didn’t vote Labour before that anyway.

No they didn't. They didn't vote at all.

Why not just stick to topics you know something about ?

The colour and consistency of kangaroo **** maybe ?


michael adams

michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Some government departments are told to prepare for a 40% cut in their
budgets as Chancellor George Osborne launches his spending review.

/quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news

This is what you mean, I take it, by "successful government"

Corse it is with a govt that pulls the plug on the most
inefficient govt departments that are doing sweet **** all.

After five years in office ?

Yes, because previously the LimpDumbs wouldn’t have allowed that.

So what's Osborne been doing for the past five years ?

Having to wear what the LimpDumbs would allow.

What's been so successful that he's suddenly found that he has to cut yet
another 40% ?

They convinced the voters to pull the plug on the LimpDumbs.

Its a shame Mr Success didn't announce this successful strategy before the
General Election don't you think ?

Why do you think that was ?

LimpDumbs wouldn’t have allowed that.

michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote

" There are some estimates that whilst £8bn on benefits goes to the
unemployed, an estimated £76bn goes to people who are working."

the quote is from Rupert Murdoch's Sky News

Just because one of Murdoch's **** rags claims something...

Sky News aren't the only source. They were simply selected
as being less open to accusations of anti-tory bias.

You were free to wave around audit office figures instead.

And even if that figure is accurate, as I said,
that was Labour's doing, not the Torys.

Murdoch's "**** rags" don't normally lie

I didn’t say they lied. They do **** up a lot more
often than operations like the audit office tho.

in order to diss his chosen administrations. That's the point.

No it is not given that it wasn’t done by the Torys.

"JHY" wrote in message ...


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , JHY
wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


They just got free US money to rebuild industry and we had to
pay enormous debts to the yanks.

Because Britain declared war over Poland.

Ah, so WW2 was all our fault.

No, but when you declare war, it is reasonable
to have to pay for the cost of winning that war.

Clearly attempting to make Germany pay for the war it
started didn't work after WW1 and just produced WW2.

It all started with World War One actually. The idea that all the nations of Europe
could afford to have millions of men mobilised for four years, in muddy trenches
or deserts, all getting paid, fed, and clothed, their wives getting allowances,
the men getting wounded many of them or getting killed, their wives widows pensioners.
While spending millions on shells to land in muddy fields - not anyone producing anything
worth selling or generating any income at all. Regardless of the tragic loss of life and
"lost
generation" the idea that anyone could ever think this was economically affordable is
ludicrous.
The UK has been on the back foot ever since 1916 when she first had to borrow from the
US - the only real victor in both world wars. The rest of the "victorious allies" ended
up, up
to their ears in debt with no money available to build "homes fit for heroes" or
anything else.
And so understanably maybe, they were in no mood to be magnanimous to the Germans.
Despite Keynes being proved right.

The Kaiser meanwhile lasted out his days until 1936 in comfortable retirement in his
villa
in Holland. Same as the wonky eyed scum-bag Ludendorf who was directly responsible for my
grandad getting killed. And who lasted until 1937, peddling the "stab in the back"
myth to the nazis so as to get himself off the hook. *******.


michael adams

....

michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote

But as with the middle class houswives who tired of post war rationing

Even sillier than you usually manage.

and made their voices felt and eventually succeeded in unseating Labour,

quote

Political reaction

In the late 1940s the Conservative Party exploited and incited growing
public anger at rationing, scarcity, controls, austerity and government
bureaucracy.

Irrelevant to your stupid claim about MIDDLE CLASS HOUSEWIVES
who wouldn’t have been voting Labour, stupid.

They used the dissatisfaction with the socialistic and egalitarian
policies of the Labour Party to rally middle-class supporters and build a
political comeback that won the 1951 general election.

Even sillier than usual. Those wouldn’t
have voted Labour prior to that election.

Their appeal was especially effective to housewives, who faced more
difficult shopping
conditions after the war than during it.[38]

Yes, but not MIDDLE CLASS HOUSEWIVES who
wouldn’t have voted Labour before that election.

/quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ration...United_Kingdom

quote

The British Housewives' League is a right-wing, non-party group
that seeks to act as the voice of the British housewife, providing
advice and encouraging active participation in society.

The League was founded by Irene May Lovelock,[2] née Northover-Smith
(1896-1974), who became its first chairman.

Post War 1946 Bread Rationing & Nationalisation
At its peak the League claimed over 100,000 members,and their
collective voice was felt in many rallies against post war bread
rationing. After six long years, this frustration with austerity
and state control became a very political issue,particularly among women
who, fed up with rationing, longed for some purchasing power and freedom
of choice. Meat, bacon, butter, sugar, eggs, tea, cheese, milk, sweets,
clothes, petrol were all still restricted.

But the MIDDLE CLASS HOUSEWIVES who were part of that
group wouldn’t have voted Labour before that election and
so it can't have been them that got the Torys elected.

It was this fallout with the Labour (Attlee) Government that led to
political change, since many women turned to the Conservative party.

Yes, but not the MIDDLE CLASS HOUSEWIVES who would never
have voted Labour so soon after Churchill had so successfully
got the yanks to bail out Britain in wartime, yet again.

Their subsequent election victory in 1951 became for many a statement
of discontent with Labour. As one woman expressed it, ‘the last election
was lost mainly in the queue at the butcher’s or the grocer’s’[9]

Yes, that is likely quite accurate, but it wasn’t MIDDLE CLASS
HOUSEWIVES that changed who they voted for, because they
would never have voted Labour at all.

quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...ives%27_League

Labour didn’t lose because of post war rationing

See above

There was a lot more involved in that particular election
than just rationing. Your own citations show that it was
much more about how Callahan had ****ed up the detail
of when the election was called and that claim is supported
by the polls which showed that they could have won if he
had called the election at the time he should have.

and middle class housewives didn’t vote Labour before that anyway.

No they didn't. They didn't vote at all.

BULL****.

none of the rest of your desperate attempt to bull****
your way out of your predicament worth bothering with,
all flushed where it belongs

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"JHY" wrote in message
...


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , JHY
wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


They just got free US money to rebuild industry and we had to
pay enormous debts to the yanks.

Because Britain declared war over Poland.

Ah, so WW2 was all our fault.

No, but when you declare war, it is reasonable
to have to pay for the cost of winning that war.

Clearly attempting to make Germany pay for the war it
started didn't work after WW1 and just produced WW2.

It all started with World War One actually. The idea that all the nations
of Europe
could afford to have millions of men mobilised for four years, in muddy
trenches
or deserts, all getting paid, fed, and clothed, their wives getting
allowances,
the men getting wounded many of them or getting killed, their wives widows
pensioners. While spending millions on shells to land in muddy fields -
not anyone producing anything worth selling or generating any income at
all. Regardless of the tragic loss of life and "lost generation" the idea
that anyone could ever think this was economically affordable is
ludicrous.

And yet WW2 was clearly economically affordable for the US and they
even had enough of a clue to do the Marshall Plan after that to ensure
that we wouldn’t see another world war started by the losers again.

The UK has been on the back foot ever since 1916

It was on the back foot well before that, essentially
because the US had left it for dead economically.

when she first had to borrow from the US

Because the US had left it for dead economically.

- the only real victor in both world wars.

And yet Britain got involved in WW2 instead
of agreeing to differ with the krauts.

The rest of the "victorious allies" ended up, up to their ears in debt

So did the US.

with no money available to build "homes fit for heroes" or anything else.

That's bull****. There was plenty of perfectly adequate housing
built to replace what had been rendered unliveable by the war.

And so understanably maybe, they were in no mood to be magnanimous to the
Germans.

Sure, it took the yanks to have the vision to do the
Marshall Plan which worked very effectively indeed.
And other stuff like buying low level military hardware
used in the Korean War from the Japs which got that
industry off its knees very effectively indeed.

Despite Keynes being proved right.

The Kaiser meanwhile lasted out his days until 1936 in comfortable
retirement in his villa in Holland. Same as the wonky eyed scum-bag
Ludendorf who was directly responsible for my grandad getting killed. And
who lasted until 1937, peddling the "stab in the back" myth to the nazis
so as to get himself off the hook. *******.

Least Adolf and many of his most senior
arseholes had the balls to kill themselves.

More than you can say for that clown Hirohito.

On 21/07/2015 23:30, michael adams wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


Some government departments are told to prepare for a 40% cut in their budgets
as Chancellor George Osborne launches his spending review.

/quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news

This is what you mean, I take it, by "successful government"

Corse it is with a govt that pulls the plug on the most
inefficient govt departments that are doing sweet **** all.


After five years in office ?

So what's Osborne been doing for the past five years ?

What's been so successful that he's suddenly found that
he has to cut yet another 40% ?

Its a shame Mr Success didn't announce this successful strategy before
the General Election don't you think ?

He did.
Don't you read the news because they did say there was going to be more
cuts after the election.


Why do you think that was ?


To confuse the people that don't listen?

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 08:35:04 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

What's been so successful that he's suddenly found that he has to cut
yet another 40% ?

Its a shame Mr Success didn't announce this successful strategy before
the General Election don't you think ?

He did.
Don't you read the news because they did say there was going to be more
cuts after the election.

Why do you think that was ?

To confuse the people that don't listen?

Clearly this 40% figure is doing that, too...

He's asked certain departments to come up with two sets of scenarios.
- What would happen if their budget was cut 25%
- What would happen if their budget was cut 40%

He's not said that any budget WILL be cut 40%. He's, basically, asked
what are the top 25% of cuts each department could make, and what are the
top 40% of cuts each department could make - if they had to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33610801

The actual cuts will be about £20bn - on top of the £12bn already
announced since the election plus £5bn in no-longer-avoided-tax, giving a
total of £37bn.

Since the total Gov't budget is about £700bn, the headline "40%" would
actually be less than 3% of total spending.

Seems like a fairly sensible way of identifying the least-politically-
toxic targets remaining. We all know that people will protect their
budgets to the death, whether there's any actual justification for them
or not.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:05:40 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Crikey. And you don't think the crappy design of much of the product
mattered?

I'll give you a clue. The Japanese made their reputation by selling
pretty ordinary cars which were designed to last their service life
without breaking down.

We're clearly thinking of different 1970s Japanese cars. The ones I'm
thinking of rotted even worse than their contemporary European rivals -
and that really was saying something.

Often not a concern of those buying them new.
What did appeal to a new car buyer was getting one which worked correctly
out of the box, and continued to do so.

BL and BMC before them had appalling quality control. Makes no difference
if it was down to poor assembly or whatever, they sold cars with faults
and expected the dealer to rectify them.

Now I dunno about you, but I'd not be pleased to having my new car going
back to the dealer for rectification - and perhaps several times. The
first Jap vehicles avoided this. In much the same way as they'd done with
motorcycles.

By the time the vehicle gets to the very used car market where structural
rust might be an issue, such rectification will already have been done. So
you're left with more normal wear and tear replacements.

Oh - I've seen BL cars straight from the factory with rust showing. And
the motoring press of the time was full of such reports.

It was into the '80s when the Japanese motor industry really started to
become a force to be reckoned with. About a decade after BL's nadir.

Dunno quite when you'd define BL's nadir. It was set up from a number of
failed or failing companies, so hardly a good start. And throughout the
life of BL those same old companies fought one another tooth and nail.
Hardly a recipe for success.

But the easy way is to blame it all on the unions.

--
*I tried to catch some fog, but I mist.*

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

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
If it was all caused by unions,

No one ever said that.

what accounts for the present mess?

There is no present mess.

Crikey.

--
*Ah, I see the f**k-up fairy has visited us again

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

On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 18:21:32 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 12:03:25 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
But you do realise secret ballots for any kind of industrial action
have been the law for some 30 years now?

yes and that's why I believe in secret ballots beign done the way
the are now. Because a person can be intimidted either way to raise
or not raise your hand for any vote.

Take the miners. A hard and dangerous job. But they are easily
intimidated by a few militants.

Wouldn't know myself, I've not be a miner. I remeber this and I would
certainly be intimidated by the few or one that did this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2512469.stm

What has that got to do with intimidation at a show of hands vote?

that you can be picked out and identified by others, which can be intimidating.
If I found out that a person that hadn;t agreed with the 'majority' when it can to a show of hand had a concrete block droped on them then that would work as imtimidation on me.

Does this ring true to you, dave?

Does what ring true ?


Would you personally be easy to intimidate by a few when surrounded by
your pals?

That makes little sense if any sense.

How? It's been said here that on a show of hands vote, many will be
intimidated into voting yes by a few militants.

Doesn't matter whether its yes or, no black or white.

Hence the need for secret
ballots. I just asked if it would apply to you. Or any others on here.

Would what apply to me ? I agree with the secret ballot way of doing things rathe rthan a show of hand the sound of voices, or who's got the biggest cock.


As it depends on the strenght of your pals too. Not that Hitler being
one person could intimidate anyone !

In his early days, Hitler managed to get majority support through the
strength of his oratory. Didn't need to intimidate anyone - although he
obviously did later.

Jewish people had friends all around them, did that stop them being intimidated ?

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
It's also odd that some insist on secret ballots where they feel ever so
sure it would benefit their narrow views, but on one of the most
fundamental principles of UK justice, the jury system, such a vote is
open.

I don't think the *show of hands* in the jury system is that close to
either a union decision or parliamentary procedure. The jurors have no
interest in the outcome.

Could you explain your logic behind that comment?

Have you escaped jury service?

No. Done jury service 4 times. ;-)

Basically the elected foreman chairs the discussion which generally goes
over the summing up given by the judge. Jury members are each invited to
put forward their own views of the case. The average jury will have
members from all walks of life and initially views diverge dramatically.
Gradually views change as the arguments continue. From time to time, the
foreman will ask for a show of hands guilty/not guilty/undecided. The
*no interest in the outcome* is a requirement of jury selection. If the
jurors are biased then the trial result is unsafe.

The bit you missed totally is that before any discussion starts,
individual members will have their view on innocent or guilty. The
discussion is an attempt to get to a unanimous verdict. And some - judging
by the posts on here - might call that intimidation. And I've heard it
called just that on one jury I sat on.

As regards juries starting out with unbiased views, it's nonsense. They
are human beings. Some may have prejudice against the police, some against
an ethnic origin. Etc.

Basically they wish any goalposts moved in an attempt to get the
result they want. Regardless if it is a majority view or not.



--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

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

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
To confuse the people that don't listen?

Clearly this 40% figure is doing that, too...

He's asked certain departments to come up with two sets of scenarios.
- What would happen if their budget was cut 25%
- What would happen if their budget was cut 40%

Odd that a government in charge for 5 years already - so in control of all
those departments - now decides after a couple of months back in power
that cuts of 40% in some may be possible. WTF were they doing for the past
5 years? Starting out from a position where cuts were even more necessary?

--
*Organized Crime Is Alive And Well; It's Called Auto Insurance.

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

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:14:50 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Odd that a government in charge for 5 years already - so in control of
all those departments

Umm, did you forget the LDs?

On 22/07/2015 13:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
To confuse the people that don't listen?

Clearly this 40% figure is doing that, too...

He's asked certain departments to come up with two sets of scenarios.
- What would happen if their budget was cut 25%
- What would happen if their budget was cut 40%

Odd that a government in charge for 5 years already - so in control of all
those departments - now decides after a couple of months back in power
that cuts of 40% in some may be possible. WTF were they doing for the past
5 years? Starting out from a position where cuts were even more necessary?


Keeping chummy with the libdems waiting for the electorate to work out
that what they had started to do was the best thing. If there hadn't
been a libdem element then things would have happened sooner.

You heard what the libdems said, they add a heart to the conservatives
and a brain to labour. Maybe you should seek out a libdem.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 21/07/2015 23:30, michael adams wrote:
What's been so successful that he's suddenly found that
he has to cut yet another 40% ?

Its a shame Mr Success didn't announce this successful strategy before
the General Election don't you think ?

He did.

He announced before the election that he might have to cut yet another
40%, did he ?

If that is indeed the case, then you shouldn't have any trouble in providing
a link.


Don't you read the news because they did say there was going to be more cuts after the
election.

When I've read your link in which George Osborne admitted before
the election that he was going to have to announce further cuts
of 40% then I'll happily admit that I was wrong. And that I clearly
didn't read the news.


Why do you think that was ?


To confuse the people that don't listen?

Well I must admit, I never heard George Osborne announce before the
Election that he was going to have to make cuts of 40%. You evidently
did, as unlike me you were listening, so you say. And doubtless you
can provide a link to substantiate what you say. Otherwise there's
nothing to say, I'm afraid, that you weren't simply hearing voices
in your head.


michael adams

....

On 22/07/2015 14:13, michael adams wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 21/07/2015 23:30, michael adams wrote:
What's been so successful that he's suddenly found that
he has to cut yet another 40% ?

Its a shame Mr Success didn't announce this successful strategy before
the General Election don't you think ?

He did.

He announced before the election that he might have to cut yet another
40%, did he ?

If that is indeed the case, then you shouldn't have any trouble in providing
a link.


Don't you read the news because they did say there was going to be more cuts after the
election.

When I've read your link in which George Osborne admitted before
the election that he was going to have to announce further cuts
of 40% then I'll happily admit that I was wrong. And that I clearly
didn't read the news.


Why do you think that was ?


To confuse the people that don't listen?

Well I must admit, I never heard George Osborne announce before the
Election that he was going to have to make cuts of 40%. You evidently
did, as unlike me you were listening, so you say. And doubtless you
can provide a link to substantiate what you say. Otherwise there's
nothing to say, I'm afraid, that you weren't simply hearing voices
in your head.

Its quite hard to find stuff before a certain date on google.. will this do?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-governme...n-2015-1474175

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 22/07/2015 14:13, michael adams wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 21/07/2015 23:30, michael adams wrote:
What's been so successful that he's suddenly found that
he has to cut yet another 40% ?

Its a shame Mr Success didn't announce this successful strategy before
the General Election don't you think ?

He did.

He announced before the election that he might have to cut yet another
40%, did he ?

If that is indeed the case, then you shouldn't have any trouble in providing
a link.


Don't you read the news because they did say there was going to be more cuts after
the
election.

When I've read your link in which George Osborne admitted before
the election that he was going to have to announce further cuts
of 40% then I'll happily admit that I was wrong. And that I clearly
didn't read the news.


Why do you think that was ?


To confuse the people that don't listen?

Well I must admit, I never heard George Osborne announce before the
Election that he was going to have to make cuts of 40%. You evidently
did, as unlike me you were listening, so you say. And doubtless you
can provide a link to substantiate what you say. Otherwise there's
nothing to say, I'm afraid, that you weren't simply hearing voices
in your head.

Its quite hard to find stuff before a certain date on google.. will this do?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-governme...n-2015-1474175


Nope. That's not George Osborne that's "cabinet insiders".

And nope again I'm afraid. That's not 40bn that's er...

"Cabinet insiders are claiming that the UK Treasury has charged senior
Whitehall officials with the task to see where the government can cut
£25bn-£30bn of spending, which are intended to be imposed for after
the 2015 general election.

£25-30bn .

So that's 0 marks out of 2 there, I'm afraid.

Wrong person, wrong amount.

So near, and yet so far.......


michael adams

....

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
Odd that a government in charge for 5 years already - so in control of
all those departments

Umm, did you forget the LDs?

Would they have been against selling off surplus WD land for housing? Etc?

But of course the Tories will blame them for everything. Exactly as they
blamed Labour. And they'll still be doing it at the end of this parliament.

--
*When a clock is hungry it goes back four seconds*

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

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:31:05 +0100, michael adams wrote:

Well I must admit, I never heard George Osborne announce before the
Election that he was going to have to make cuts of 40%.

Its quite hard to find stuff before a certain date on google.. will
this do?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-governme...ing-cuts-post-
general-election-2015-1474175

Nope. That's not George Osborne that's "cabinet insiders".

And nope again I'm afraid. That's not 40bn that's er...

Are you getting £40bn and 40% confused?

"Cabinet insiders are claiming that the UK Treasury has charged senior
Whitehall officials with the task to see where the government can cut
£25bn-£30bn of spending, which are intended to be imposed for after the
2015 general election.

£25-30bn .

Umm, yes. And this round is targetting savings of £20bn. Last time I got
my calculator out, 25-30 was more than 20.

"Adrian" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:31:05 +0100, michael adams wrote:

Well I must admit, I never heard George Osborne announce before the
Election that he was going to have to make cuts of 40%.

Its quite hard to find stuff before a certain date on google.. will
this do?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-governme...ing-cuts-post-
general-election-2015-1474175

Nope. That's not George Osborne that's "cabinet insiders".

And nope again I'm afraid. That's not 40bn that's er...

Are you getting £40bn and 40% confused?

Sorry my mistake

Projected spending 2015/2016

Total Spending £759.5 billion
Pensions £153.3 billion
Health Care £137.9 billion
Education £89.4 billion
Defence £45.1 billion
Welfare £110.5 billion

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/



*40% of £759.5bn = Projected Total Cuts of £303bn by 2019 -20

over 5 years 2015-2016,2016-2017,2017-2018,2018-2019, 2019-2020*

Which averaged out makes £60.6 billion cuts per year rather than a mere 40bn.

£20.6 billion more that I mistakenly suggested.

Anyway I'm glad to have been given the opportunity to correct that lower figure
so thank you for your post.


michael adams


*
Because they have been instructed by the chancellor to "model" the impact on the services
they provide of finding savings of either 25% or 40% by 2019-20

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33610801

....

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:07:58 +0100, michael adams wrote:

Are you getting £40bn and 40% confused?

*40% of £759.5bn

Except it isn't.

It's 40% of some departments.
The NHS is excluded.
The MoD is excluded.
Schools are excluded.
The ODA is excluded.

And, even then, the actual savings being aimed at are £20bn. The 40% and
25% figures are to kick ministers into thinking hard about their budgets,
and seeing what's actually expendable.

But thank you for confirming that you're not actually interested in the
reality, just an opportunity to jerk that knee.

"Adrian" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:07:58 +0100, michael adams wrote:

Are you getting £40bn and 40% confused?

*40% of £759.5bn

Except it isn't.

It's 40% of some departments.
The NHS is excluded.
The MoD is excluded.
Schools are excluded.
The ODA is excluded.

So that leaves

Pensions £153.3 billion and Welfare £110.5 billion

So that over the next five years leading up to the next election, with an ageing
healthier population, all of whom have the vote, Osborne hopes to cut
either 25% or 40% off the pension bill.

Or am I missing something ?


michael adams

....

On 22/07/15 13:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


No. Done jury service 4 times. ;-)
God help any defendants who spoke BBC english





--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:49:18 +0100, michael adams wrote:

Are you getting £40bn and 40% confused?

*40% of £759.5bn

Except it isn't.

It's 40% of some departments.
The NHS is excluded.
The MoD is excluded.
Schools are excluded.
The ODA is excluded.

So that leaves

Pensions £153.3 billion and Welfare £110.5 billion

So that over the next five years leading up to the next election, with
an ageing healthier population, all of whom have the vote, Osborne hopes
to cut either 25% or 40% off the pension bill.

Or am I missing something ?

Yes. The fact that pensions have been "triple locked" to increase to the
highest of three factors - inflation, average salaries or 2.5% - each
year.

Oh, and that the welfare £12bn reduction's already been announced, and is
separate to this £20bn.

But, hey, you could just read the Beeb article I linked to earlier. It
explains it in nice small words, save me repeatedly rehashing it for the
hard of thinking.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
It's also odd that some insist on secret ballots where they feel ever so
sure it would benefit their narrow views, but on one of the most
fundamental principles of UK justice, the jury system, such a vote is
open.

I don't think the *show of hands* in the jury system is that close to
either a union decision or parliamentary procedure. The jurors have no
interest in the outcome.

Could you explain your logic behind that comment?

Have you escaped jury service?

No. Done jury service 4 times. ;-)

Basically the elected foreman chairs the discussion which generally goes
over the summing up given by the judge. Jury members are each invited to
put forward their own views of the case. The average jury will have
members from all walks of life and initially views diverge dramatically.
Gradually views change as the arguments continue. From time to time, the
foreman will ask for a show of hands guilty/not guilty/undecided. The
*no interest in the outcome* is a requirement of jury selection. If the
jurors are biased then the trial result is unsafe.

The bit you missed totally is that before any discussion starts,
individual members will have their view on innocent or guilty. The
discussion is an attempt to get to a unanimous verdict. And some - judging
by the posts on here - might call that intimidation. And I've heard it
called just that on one jury I sat on.

As regards juries starting out with unbiased views, it's nonsense. They
are human beings. Some may have prejudice against the police, some against
an ethnic origin. Etc.

Maybe you get nicer jurors down here.

I still say the jury members must not have an interest in the outcome.

--
Tim Lamb

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
To confuse the people that don't listen?

Clearly this 40% figure is doing that, too...

He's asked certain departments to come up with two sets of scenarios.
- What would happen if their budget was cut 25%
- What would happen if their budget was cut 40%

Odd that a government in charge for 5 years already - so in control of all
those departments - now decides after a couple of months back in power
that cuts of 40% in some may be possible.

Not when the LimpDums got a say on that previously.

WTF were they doing for the past 5 years?

Having to get what they wanted to do past the LimpDums, stupid.