On 06-Dec-16 8:43 AM, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 06-Dec-16 2:07 AM, Bill Wright wrote:
On 06/12/2016 00:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Just watched HIGMNFY tonight. No wonder you are so annnoyed. Your party
getting taken to the cleaners at every turn.

And my party is?

If it was the edition I watched on Dave recently, he must mean the
Labour Party.

Nah. That's your party...

Hardly. I might view some of their aspirations as admirable, but I
wouldn't vote for them. If I had a party, it would be called something
like the Altruistic Capitalist Party - a party dedicated to the idea
that the best way to help the poor is to ensure that the economy is
strong and buoyant and to make sure that everybody get a fair (if not
necessarily equal) share of the spoils. That is why I am opposed to
Brexit - I am convinced that, in the long term, it is going to have the
opposite effect on our economy.


--
--

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 06-Dec-16 8:43 AM, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 06-Dec-16 2:07 AM, Bill Wright wrote:
On 06/12/2016 00:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Just watched HIGMNFY tonight. No wonder you are so annnoyed. Your
party
getting taken to the cleaners at every turn.

And my party is?

If it was the edition I watched on Dave recently, he must mean the
Labour Party.

Nah. That's your party...

Hardly. I might view some of their aspirations as admirable, but I
wouldn't vote for them. If I had a party, it would be called something
like the Altruistic Capitalist Party - a party dedicated to the idea that
the best way to help the poor is to ensure that the economy is strong and
buoyant and to make sure that everybody get a fair (if not necessarily
equal) share of the spoils.

That is why I am opposed to Brexit - I am convinced that, in the long
term, it is going to have the opposite effect on our economy.

Bet it doesn’t, particularly when the EU implodes.

In article , Rod Speed
wrote:
Hardly. I might view some of their aspirations as admirable, but I
wouldn't vote for them. If I had a party, it would be called something
like the Altruistic Capitalist Party - a party dedicated to the idea
that the best way to help the poor is to ensure that the economy is
strong and buoyant and to make sure that everybody get a fair (if not
necessarily equal) share of the spoils.

That is why I am opposed to Brexit - I am convinced that, in the long
term, it is going to have the opposite effect on our economy.

Bet it doesnt, particularly when the EU implodes.

A quarter of the UK population just forced us *all* to gamble on that!

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 07/12/16 12:51, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rod Speed
wrote:
Hardly. I might view some of their aspirations as admirable, but I
wouldn't vote for them. If I had a party, it would be called something
like the Altruistic Capitalist Party - a party dedicated to the idea
that the best way to help the poor is to ensure that the economy is
strong and buoyant and to make sure that everybody get a fair (if not
necessarily equal) share of the spoils.

That is why I am opposed to Brexit - I am convinced that, in the long
term, it is going to have the opposite effect on our economy.

Bet it doesnt, particularly when the EU implodes.

A quarter of the UK population just forced us *all* to gamble on that!


Well it was better than single bent Prime minister forcing us all to
gable on the reverse.

Jim

On 07/12/2016 12:51, Jim Lesurf wrote:

A quarter of the UK population just forced us *all* to gamble on that!

Jim

Those who didn't vote don't count. So what you mean is, more than half
gave us to opportunity to have a bright future as an independent country.

Bill

In message , Bill Wright
writes
On 07/12/2016 12:51, Jim Lesurf wrote:

A quarter of the UK population just forced us *all* to gamble on that!

Jim

Those who didn't vote don't count. So what you mean is, more than half
gave us to opportunity to have a bright future as an independent
country.

If a general election results in an unsatisfactory government,
non-voters can redeem themselves by making sure they do vote next time.
Unfortunately, with this referendum, once we have announced that we're
leaving the EU there can't BE a next time.
--
Ian

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 16:32:57 +0000
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Bill Wright
writes
On 07/12/2016 12:51, Jim Lesurf wrote:

A quarter of the UK population just forced us *all* to gamble on that!

Jim

Those who didn't vote don't count. So what you mean is, more than half
gave us to opportunity to have a bright future as an independent
country.

If a general election results in an unsatisfactory government,
non-voters can redeem themselves by making sure they do vote next time.
Unfortunately, with this referendum, once we have announced that we're
leaving the EU there can't BE a next time.

Anyone who didn't vote in the referendum with the months of advance notice
given allowing plenty of time to research the issues along with the
availability of postal voting clearly didn't give a **** one way or the other
and there's little guarantee they'd be any different next time.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry, the way things are going the EU will be busted flush
in a decade.

--
Spud

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , Bill Wright
writes
On 07/12/2016 12:51, Jim Lesurf wrote:

A quarter of the UK population just forced us *all* to gamble on that!

Jim

Those who didn't vote don't count. So what you mean is, more than half
gave us to opportunity to have a bright future as an independent country.

If a general election results in an unsatisfactory government, non-voters
can redeem themselves by making sure they do vote next time.
Unfortunately, with this referendum, once we have announced that we're
leaving the EU there can't BE a next time.

There can actually. Some PM is free to campaign to
rejoin the EU and even have a referendum on that too.

On 07/12/2016 16:32, Ian Jackson wrote:

If a general election results in an unsatisfactory government,
non-voters can redeem themselves by making sure they do vote next time.
Unfortunately, with this referendum, once we have announced that we're
leaving the EU there can't BE a next time.

In that respect it mirrors many of life's important decisions.

Bill

Jim Lesurf wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Hardly. I might view some of their aspirations as admirable, but I
wouldn't vote for them. If I had a party, it would be called something
like the Altruistic Capitalist Party - a party dedicated to the idea
that the best way to help the poor is to ensure that the economy is
strong and buoyant and to make sure that everybody get a fair (if not
necessarily equal) share of the spoils.

That is why I am opposed to Brexit - I am convinced that, in the long
term, it is going to have the opposite effect on our economy.

Bet it doesn't, particularly when the EU implodes.

A quarter of the UK population just forced us *all* to gamble on that!

That's the way democracy works. And it’s a lot more than a quarter
of those who were eligible to vote on that particular issue.

It is in fact much less of a financial gamble for
Britain to be out of the EU when the EU implodes.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 06-Dec-16 8:43 AM, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 06-Dec-16 2:07 AM, Bill Wright wrote:
On 06/12/2016 00:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Just watched HIGMNFY tonight. No wonder you are so annnoyed. Your
party
getting taken to the cleaners at every turn.

And my party is?

If it was the edition I watched on Dave recently, he must mean the
Labour Party.

Nah. That's your party...

Hardly. I might view some of their aspirations as admirable, but I wouldn't
vote for them. If I had a party, it would be called something like the
Altruistic Capitalist Party - a party dedicated to the idea that the best
way to help the poor is to ensure that the economy is strong and buoyant
and to make sure that everybody get a fair (if not necessarily equal) share
of the spoils.

Form it then because you'll find that the vast majority of the population
will agree wholeheartedly and you will be able to create utopia. Then again,
perhaps not.

"Richard" wrote in message
news
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 06-Dec-16 8:43 AM, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 06-Dec-16 2:07 AM, Bill Wright wrote:
On 06/12/2016 00:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Just watched HIGMNFY tonight. No wonder you are so annnoyed. Your
party
getting taken to the cleaners at every turn.

And my party is?

If it was the edition I watched on Dave recently, he must mean the
Labour Party.

Nah. That's your party...

Hardly. I might view some of their aspirations as admirable, but I
wouldn't vote for them. If I had a party, it would be called something
like the Altruistic Capitalist Party - a party dedicated to the idea that
the best way to help the poor is to ensure that the economy is strong and
buoyant and to make sure that everybody get a fair (if not necessarily
equal) share of the spoils.

Form it then because you'll find that the vast majority of the population
will agree wholeheartedly

I doubt it. Bet they couldn’t even agree on a
fair (if not necessarily equal) share of the spoils.

and you will be able to create utopia.

Nope, at most a generally agreed on consensus.

Then again, perhaps not.

Absolutely certainly not in fact.

On 07-Dec-16 5:49 PM, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 06-Dec-16 8:43 AM, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 06-Dec-16 2:07 AM, Bill Wright wrote:
On 06/12/2016 00:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Just watched HIGMNFY tonight. No wonder you are so annnoyed. Your
party
getting taken to the cleaners at every turn.

And my party is?

If it was the edition I watched on Dave recently, he must mean the
Labour Party.

Nah. That's your party...

Hardly. I might view some of their aspirations as admirable, but I
wouldn't vote for them. If I had a party, it would be called something
like the Altruistic Capitalist Party - a party dedicated to the idea
that the best way to help the poor is to ensure that the economy is
strong and buoyant and to make sure that everybody get a fair (if not
necessarily equal) share of the spoils.

Form it then because you'll find that the vast majority of the
population will agree wholeheartedly and you will be able to create
utopia. Then again, perhaps not.

Any new party, however well supported, is going to take decades to be in
a position to form a government, so I wouldn't be around to see it.

--
--

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 06-Dec-16 8:43 AM, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 06-Dec-16 2:07 AM, Bill Wright wrote:
On 06/12/2016 00:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Just watched HIGMNFY tonight. No wonder you are so annnoyed. Your
party
getting taken to the cleaners at every turn.

And my party is?

If it was the edition I watched on Dave recently, he must mean the
Labour Party.

Nah. That's your party...

Hardly. I might view some of their aspirations as admirable, but I
wouldn't vote for them. If I had a party, it would be called something
like the Altruistic Capitalist Party - a party dedicated to the idea that
the best way to help the poor is to ensure that the economy is strong and
buoyant and to make sure that everybody get a fair (if not necessarily
equal) share of the spoils.

what a shame there isn't such a party to vote for

That is why I am opposed to Brexit - I am convinced that, in the long
term, it is going to have the opposite effect on our economy.

which is why some (many) took a risk on this

tim