"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

Huge wrote in message ...
It's obscene that Gordon Brown thinks he can run my life better than
I
can.

Agreed!

More ********. Brown is not running anyone's
life except his own. Is there a new moon about?

There speaks a man who obviously doesn't run a business.

How do you know?

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:34:29 +0000, Julian Fowler
wrote:

They can: is it not obscene that "designer" clothes are sold at
immense profit to their designers/marketers while they are made by
workers in third world countries for poverty-level wages? Is it not
obscene that city traders can take 6- or 7- figure bonuses while the
rest of us are told that "the value of shares can go up or down" as
our pensions, endowments, and savings take yet another hit? Is it not
obscene that capital is often available only to businesses that can
convince the bankers controlling the capital (controlling, note, its
never *their* money) that the company to be invested in can be sold on
at a profit in 36 months -- sod ideas like investing in a *product* or
in *people* for a slow but long term return.

So, if another carpetbagger succeeds next time in demutualising
Standard Life or Nationwide and your shares or policies suddenly paid
you a huge bonus out of the blue, you'd say, "No, thanks! Don't need
it!"

In the long term probably not needed.

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:05:17 +0000, Julian Fowler
wrote:

Contrary to the belief of the (post) Thatcher generation, capitalism
is *not* about watching the value of your house grow while you scratch
your arse, nor is it about making quick, obscene profits by buying and
selling shares, currencies, or commodities on the London markets.

Eh? What *is* it about, then?

I could never figure that out either.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

as *positive* aspects of the Thatcher years???

None whatsoever.

as *positive* aspects of the Blair years???

Much needed constitutional change - the most radical since Oliver
Cromwell.

I know it is difficult, but try not to
confuse radical with good.

Ridding the nation of hereditary Lords is the most radical political step
since Cromwell.

Nah, the radical step wasn't replacing an undemocratic upper house full of
people who owed their position to nothing more than an accident of birth,
with an undemocratic upper house full of people who owed their position to
nothing more than being a significant donor to the Labour Party or being an
old buddy of Tony's. The radical bit was to think that people would see it
as a step towards democracy and accountability.



snip babble

If you can't partake in reasoned debate, then fine, ignore the points made.
Inserting snip babble just makes you look like a bigger prick than you
already are (if such a thing were possible).

The soundest eco,money in the world. The pound is almighty high

The strength of the pound is very much a double-edged sword. Especially
with
a PM so dogmatically commited to joining the EMU. Oh, and we have an
increasing trade deficit, business investment down 1.6% year on year.

The economy and pound don't stay that way for 7 years because of luck.

Sure. And the economy didn't get there by luck alone. Remember Gordon's
promise in 1997 to follow the previous governments fiscal policies?
Pointless asking really, you just replace with snip babble.



Unemployment is very low, etc, etc.

Well, unemployment is low,

Thank you.

Are bloody blind?

snip inane babble


Confirms it, you are.

Cheers
Clive

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

as *positive* aspects of the Thatcher years???

None whatsoever.

as *positive* aspects of the Blair years???

Much needed constitutional change - the most radical since Oliver
Cromwell.

I know it is difficult, but try not to
confuse radical with good.

Ridding the nation of hereditary Lords is the most radical political
step
since Cromwell.

snip babble

snip babble

snip babble

The soundest eco,money in the world. The pound is almighty high

The strength of the pound is very much a double-edged sword.
Especially
with
a PM so dogmatically commited to joining the EMU. Oh, and we have an
increasing trade deficit, business investment down 1.6% year on year.

The economy and pound don't stay that way for 7 years because of luck.

Sure.

Thank you.

Unemployment is very low, etc, etc.

Well, unemployment is low,

Thank you.

Are bloody blind?

snip inane babble

snip babble

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

as *positive* aspects of the Thatcher years???

None whatsoever.

as *positive* aspects of the Blair years???

Much needed constitutional change - the most radical since Oliver
Cromwell.

I know it is difficult, but try not to
confuse radical with good.

Ridding the nation of hereditary Lords is the most radical political
step
since Cromwell.

snip babble

snip babble

snip babble

The soundest eco,money in the world. The pound is almighty high

The strength of the pound is very much a double-edged sword.
Especially
with
a PM so dogmatically commited to joining the EMU. Oh, and we have an
increasing trade deficit, business investment down 1.6% year on
year.

The economy and pound don't stay that way for 7 years because of luck.

Sure.

Thank you.

Unemployment is very low, etc, etc.

Well, unemployment is low,

Thank you.

Are bloody blind?

snip inane babble

snip babble



Oh dear, IMM's just failed his Turing Test.

Cheers
Clive

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:55:27 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left. New Labour are still a socialist organisation
- they are utterly convinced they can run your life better than you
can, and in particular that they can spend your money better than you
can. And anyone who dares suggest otherwise is immediately castigated
as an "extreme right winger" or "Thatcherite".

Spot on - and it's a very carefully engineered shift in perception,
which has taken several years to mature.

I have never read such crap!

You normally write it.....


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:12:19 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:08:12 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

What's the betting that stamp durty will rise significantly, or that
the chancellor will introduce some new kind of tax, e.g. capital gains
tax on first properties?

A rationalization of stamp duty would seem in order, the current
system being highly inflationary wrt house prices: flat rate on all
purchases? Changes to capital gains tax that would hit quick-profit
property developers and serial-movers seem to be an excellent idea.

With the latest Relocation Relocation programme with Kirstie and Phil
extolling the virtues of selling up and affording TWO properties
elsewhere, surely the chancellor and his advisers must see home
ownership as a nice little earner - for him!

Home *ownership* shouldn't / need not attract taxation: speculative
property buying/selling should, given the overall benefits of taking
some of the heat out of the property market.

Just release lots of land in the country in order to build on, preferable to
individual self builders, and prices will stop rising.

Oh no....... :-(





..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left.

So fairly soon, as this leftward trend progresses, we should get back to
centre.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:55:27 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left. New Labour are still a socialist
organisation
- they are utterly convinced they can run your life better than you
can, and in particular that they can spend your money better than you
can. And anyone who dares suggest otherwise is immediately castigated
as an "extreme right winger" or "Thatcherite".

Spot on - and it's a very carefully engineered shift in perception,
which has taken several years to mature.

I have never read such crap!

You normally write it.....

LOL, such fun Andy.

"Phil" wrote in message
...

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left.

So fairly soon, as this leftward trend progresses, we should get back to
centre.

Quite right. In fact the Liberals have, so-called more left policies than
New Lab.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:12:19 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:08:12 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

What's the betting that stamp durty will rise significantly, or that
the chancellor will introduce some new kind of tax, e.g. capital gains
tax on first properties?

A rationalization of stamp duty would seem in order, the current
system being highly inflationary wrt house prices: flat rate on all
purchases? Changes to capital gains tax that would hit quick-profit
property developers and serial-movers seem to be an excellent idea.

With the latest Relocation Relocation programme with Kirstie and Phil
extolling the virtues of selling up and affording TWO properties
elsewhere, surely the chancellor and his advisers must see home
ownership as a nice little earner - for him!

Home *ownership* shouldn't / need not attract taxation: speculative
property buying/selling should, given the overall benefits of taking
some of the heat out of the property market.

Just release lots of land in the country in order to build on, preferable
to
individual self builders, and prices will stop rising.

Oh no....... :-(

Do you mean prices will still keep rising? How do you figure this out?

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:44:28 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:12:19 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:08:12 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

What's the betting that stamp durty will rise significantly, or that
the chancellor will introduce some new kind of tax, e.g. capital gains
tax on first properties?

A rationalization of stamp duty would seem in order, the current
system being highly inflationary wrt house prices: flat rate on all
purchases? Changes to capital gains tax that would hit quick-profit
property developers and serial-movers seem to be an excellent idea.

With the latest Relocation Relocation programme with Kirstie and Phil
extolling the virtues of selling up and affording TWO properties
elsewhere, surely the chancellor and his advisers must see home
ownership as a nice little earner - for him!

Home *ownership* shouldn't / need not attract taxation: speculative
property buying/selling should, given the overall benefits of taking
some of the heat out of the property market.

Just release lots of land in the country in order to build on, preferable
to
individual self builders, and prices will stop rising.

Oh no....... :-(

Do you mean prices will still keep rising? How do you figure this out?

No. More that you're about to plug in tape no. 3 - the one about land
redistribution, land value tax, Henry George, Kevin Cahill, Paxo,
Elizabeth Windsor and the House of Lords.

Why don't you post all your material on a web site, then all you would
need to do is post a URL. Think of the time saving and the extra cha
cha cha that you could enjoy.

Everybody else could out together another site refuting all your
arguments and life would be really simple.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:44:28 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:12:19 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:08:12 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

What's the betting that stamp durty will rise significantly, or
that
the chancellor will introduce some new kind of tax, e.g. capital
gains
tax on first properties?

A rationalization of stamp duty would seem in order, the current
system being highly inflationary wrt house prices: flat rate on all
purchases? Changes to capital gains tax that would hit quick-profit
property developers and serial-movers seem to be an excellent idea.

With the latest Relocation Relocation programme with Kirstie and
Phil
extolling the virtues of selling up and affording TWO properties
elsewhere, surely the chancellor and his advisers must see home
ownership as a nice little earner - for him!

Home *ownership* shouldn't / need not attract taxation: speculative
property buying/selling should, given the overall benefits of taking
some of the heat out of the property market.

Just release lots of land in the country in order to build on,
preferable
to
individual self builders, and prices will stop rising.

Oh no....... :-(

Do you mean prices will still keep rising? How do you figure this out?

No. More that you're about to plug in tape no. 3 - the one about land
redistribution, land value tax, Henry George, Kevin Cahill, Paxo,
Elizabeth Windsor and the House of Lords.

I am?

Why don't you post all your material on a web site, then all you would
need to do is post a URL. Think of the time saving and the extra cha
cha cha that you could enjoy.

Not forgetting the tango, of which I am a master.

Everybody else could out together another site refuting all your
arguments and life would be really simple.

It would?

Andy Hall wrote:

Why don't you post all your material on a web site, then all you would
need to do is post a URL. Think of the time saving and the extra cha
cha cha that you could enjoy.

Everybody else could out together another site refuting all your
arguments and life would be really simple.


Can we also have a separate site for the "cheap, crappy tools replaced
frequently v. quality tools that last" debate? Happy to host both of
those for free.

--
Grunff

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:43:31 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Phil" wrote in message
...

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left.

So fairly soon, as this leftward trend progresses, we should get back to
centre.

Quite right. In fact the Liberals have, so-called more left policies than
New Lab.

Which is why I am going to vote Lib Dem next time (as I did last time,
but not in 1997, when I voted Labour and rue it to this day).

MM

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:03:31 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:34:29 +0000, Julian Fowler
wrote:

They can: is it not obscene that "designer" clothes are sold at
immense profit to their designers/marketers while they are made by
workers in third world countries for poverty-level wages? Is it not
obscene that city traders can take 6- or 7- figure bonuses while the
rest of us are told that "the value of shares can go up or down" as
our pensions, endowments, and savings take yet another hit? Is it not
obscene that capital is often available only to businesses that can
convince the bankers controlling the capital (controlling, note, its
never *their* money) that the company to be invested in can be sold on
at a profit in 36 months -- sod ideas like investing in a *product* or
in *people* for a slow but long term return.

So, if another carpetbagger succeeds next time in demutualising
Standard Life or Nationwide and your shares or policies suddenly paid
you a huge bonus out of the blue, you'd say, "No, thanks! Don't need
it!"

In the long term probably not needed.

Okay. Please send me a cheque for £10,000. Ta muchly!

MM

In article , Grunff
wrote:
You just don't get it, do you? When someone spends £10k doing up
their kitchen in their £120k house, where do you think that money
ultimately comes from?? That's right - mortgages!

The potential problem would appear to be that they increased the
mortgage by £25K, spent the rest on a new car, and the £10K kitchen
may or may not make a difference to the value of the house when
they sell.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

Tony Bryer wrote:

The potential problem would appear to be that they increased the
mortgage by £25K, spent the rest on a new car, and the £10K kitchen
may or may not make a difference to the value of the house when
they sell.


Very true - I didn't want to get into that whole "lets borrow on the
house to finance our lifestyle" thing, but it's very prevalent.

I'm constantly amazed by how friends who are in very similar financial
and employment circumstances to us can manage to buy things which we
would simply not consider to be within our means.

--
Grunff

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:43:31 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Phil" wrote in message
...

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left.

So fairly soon, as this leftward trend progresses, we should get back
to
centre.

Quite right. In fact the Liberals have, so-called more left policies
than
New Lab.

Which is why I am going to vote Lib Dem next time (as I did last time,
but not in 1997, when I voted Labour and rue it to this day).

Blair is aiming where it matters; constitutional change. That is very
important to the Medieval UK.

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

Why don't you post all your material on a web site, then all you would
need to do is post a URL. Think of the time saving and the extra cha
cha cha that you could enjoy.

Everybody else could out together another site refuting all your
arguments and life would be really simple.


Can we also have a separate site for the "cheap, crappy tools replaced
frequently v. quality tools that last" debate? Happy to host both of
those for free.

Is that your thing? get your jollies from that?

IMM wrote:

Can we also have a separate site for the "cheap, crappy tools replaced
frequently v. quality tools that last" debate? Happy to host both of
those for free.


Is that your thing? get your jollies from that?

What, hosting? Yes, it very much is my thing. Very enjoyable it is too.

--
Grunff

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:43:31 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Phil" wrote in message
...

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left.

So fairly soon, as this leftward trend progresses, we should get back
to
centre.

Quite right. In fact the Liberals have, so-called more left policies
than
New Lab.

Which is why I am going to vote Lib Dem next time (as I did last time,
but not in 1997, when I voted Labour and rue it to this day).

Blair is aiming where it matters; constitutional change. That is very
important to the Medieval UK.


So far his record after nearly 7 years is pretty poor, even by New Labour
standards.

The Jenkins report on electoral reform is gathering dust on a shelf
somewhere, and whilst he made a step forward by reducing (and eventually
doing away with) hereditary peers in the House of Lords, he immediatly took
an equal (if not larger) step backwards by trying to insist on a majority of
unelected appointees to the Upper House. Oh, and then there's the Scottish
and Welsh Assemblies; one a money pit and the other a near irrelevance to
many of its constituents. And in the case of the Scottish Assembly, he
completely failed to address the West Lothian Question.

So whilst he has made some constitional change - note change, not
necessarily progress - he has completely failed from a democratic
perspective. In fact with the increased politicisation of the Civil Service
and the greater numbers of unelected officials (Charlie Falconer, Alistair
Campbell) wielding substantial power, we may well have taken steps backwards
democratically.

Oh, and to save IMM time, here's a

snip babble

for him to cut around.

Cheers
Clive

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:43:31 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Phil" wrote in message
...

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left.

So fairly soon, as this leftward trend progresses, we should get
back
to
centre.

Quite right. In fact the Liberals have, so-called more left policies
than
New Lab.

Which is why I am going to vote Lib Dem next time (as I did last time,
but not in 1997, when I voted Labour and rue it to this day).

Blair is aiming where it matters; constitutional change. That is very
important to the Medieval UK.

So far his record after nearly 7 years is pretty poor,

It is zestful compared to the previous 400 years.

I just saw Tone on the TV at question time in the HP. What a man!
Brilliant!

snip disjointed babble

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:37:11 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


I just saw Tone on the TV at question time in the HP. What a man!
Brilliant!
Well said IMM

On 11 Feb 2004 11:51:21 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Or have a pension, or any savings, or a car, or thinks about his old
age, or an financial savvy whatsoever.

Actually I think you are in error on one count - MPs are always
thinking about their old age and pensions. Don't forget they voted
themselves a 25% increase paid for from public funds not so long ago.

However I don't see this as a Labour-only problem. They are all at it
with their snout in the trough.

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

Huge wrote:

AOL

Beer?

Mmmm...Beer.....

--
Grunff

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:37:11 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:43:31 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Phil" wrote in message
...

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left.

So fairly soon, as this leftward trend progresses, we should get
back
to
centre.

Quite right. In fact the Liberals have, so-called more left policies
than
New Lab.

Which is why I am going to vote Lib Dem next time (as I did last time,
but not in 1997, when I voted Labour and rue it to this day).

Blair is aiming where it matters; constitutional change. That is very
important to the Medieval UK.

So far his record after nearly 7 years is pretty poor,

It is zestful compared to the previous 400 years.

I just saw Tone on the TV at question time in the HP. What a man!
Brilliant!

You should have said: "What an actor! Brilliant!" Blair has less
behind the facade than a Hollywood film set.

MM

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:26:42 +0000, Grunff wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

Why don't you post all your material on a web site, then all you would
need to do is post a URL. Think of the time saving and the extra cha
cha cha that you could enjoy.

Everybody else could out together another site refuting all your
arguments and life would be really simple.


Can we also have a separate site for the "cheap, crappy tools replaced
frequently v. quality tools that last" debate? Happy to host both of
those for free.


Good idea. I think we've covered most of the possible angles on
that.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:

AOL

Beer?

Mmmm...Beer.....


Only a temporary solution I'm afraid.

Cheers
Clive

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

Why don't you post all your material on a web site, then all you would
need to do is post a URL. Think of the time saving and the extra cha
cha cha that you could enjoy.

Everybody else could out together another site refuting all your
arguments and life would be really simple.


Can we also have a separate site for the "cheap, crappy tools replaced
frequently v. quality tools that last" debate? Happy to host both of
those for free.


Could I reserve two extra pages please - one covering the IMM principles of
converting a cold roof into a warm roof, and the other explaining his miraculous
theory of how to heat up just the top of a hot water cylinder using the coil at
the bottom.

Peter

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:39:03 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:


You should have said: "What an actor! Brilliant!" Blair has less
behind the facade than a Hollywood film set.

Be honest, whatever creed, they're all actors and BS merchants

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:22:06 +0000, ralph
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:39:03 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:


You should have said: "What an actor! Brilliant!" Blair has less
behind the facade than a Hollywood film set.

Be honest, whatever creed, they're all actors and BS merchants

But the Lib Dems less so, in my opinion. Give them a go! How can they
possibly be worse than Labour or Conservative? We have now had the
proof (18 years of the Tories, 7 years of "New" Labour) to know that
they wouldn't be able to find their way out of a paper bag if it had a
hole at both ends.

MM

"Peter Taylor" wrote in message
...

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

Why don't you post all your material on a web site, then all you would
need to do is post a URL. Think of the time saving and the extra cha
cha cha that you could enjoy.

Everybody else could out together another site refuting all your
arguments and life would be really simple.


Can we also have a separate site for the "cheap, crappy tools replaced
frequently v. quality tools that last" debate? Happy to host both of
those for free.


Could I reserve two extra pages please - one covering the IMM principles
of
converting a cold roof into a warm roof, and the other explaining his
miraculous
theory of how to heat up just the top of a hot water cylinder using the
coil at
the bottom.

Good idea!

In article , Mike
Mitchell wrote:
But the Lib Dems less so, in my opinion. Give them a go! How can
they possibly be worse than Labour or Conservative?

They ruled LB Richmond for 18 years. The RICS Journal c.1992 advised
anyone thinking of applying for planning permission (talking of
serious developments, not householder apps) to start work on the
appeal before submitting the application as refusal was probable -
nearly every major retail scheme in the Borough only got through on
appeal and during this period Twickenham town centre was allowed to
decay whilst our neighbours went out and fought for new investment.

Having said this we have a truly excellent LD MP in Vincent Cable.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:22:06 +0000, ralph
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:39:03 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:


You should have said: "What an actor! Brilliant!" Blair has less
behind the facade than a Hollywood film set.

Be honest, whatever creed, they're all actors and BS merchants

But the Lib Dems less so, in my opinion. Give them a go! How can they
possibly be worse than Labour or Conservative?

We have now had the proof (18 years of the Tories,

Sad days indeed. Poverty and deprivation in abundance.

7 years of "New" Labour)

The best we have had in countless decades.

I am basically an ABC, Anyone But Conservative. But New Lab, is aiming for
desperately needed constitutional change, so they have to stay. The country
have to break these elf interest Medieval institutions.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:46:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:22:06 +0000, ralph
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:39:03 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:


You should have said: "What an actor! Brilliant!" Blair has less
behind the facade than a Hollywood film set.

Be honest, whatever creed, they're all actors and BS merchants

But the Lib Dems less so, in my opinion. Give them a go! How can they
possibly be worse than Labour or Conservative?

We have now had the proof (18 years of the Tories,

Sad days indeed. Poverty and deprivation in abundance.


Really?



7 years of "New" Labour)

The best we have had in countless decades.

I am basically an ABC, Anyone But Conservative. But New Lab, is aiming for
desperately needed constitutional change, so they have to stay.

That doesn't compute. What little constitutional change is needed
doesn't require TB

The country
have to break these elf interest Medieval institutions.

What about gnomes and dwarves?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:46:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:22:06 +0000, ralph
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:39:03 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:


You should have said: "What an actor! Brilliant!" Blair has less
behind the facade than a Hollywood film set.

Be honest, whatever creed, they're all actors and BS merchants

But the Lib Dems less so, in my opinion. Give them a go! How can they
possibly be worse than Labour or Conservative?

We have now had the proof (18 years of the Tories,

Sad days indeed. Poverty and deprivation in abundance.

Really?

Yes, Andy, in the real world there was.

7 years of "New" Labour)

The best we have had in countless decades.

I am basically an ABC, Anyone But Conservative. But New Lab, is aiming
for
desperately needed constitutional change, so they have to stay.

That doesn't compute. What little constitutional change is needed
doesn't require TB

Andy, the UK requires massive constitutional change, to rid ourselves of a
tier of parasites.

The country
have to break these elf interest Medieval institutions.

What about gnomes and dwarves?

And snakes as well.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:46:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

I am basically an ABC, Anyone But Conservative. But New Lab, is aiming for
desperately needed constitutional change, so they have to stay. The country
have to break these elf interest Medieval institutions.

I'm all for modernisation, but Labour is breaking the kinds of
traditions that have served Britain so well for centuries. Lord Woolf
today warned against the Draconian proposals to change the justice
system, and hardly a day goes by when Blunkett doesn't try out his
latest "Heydrich" manoeuvre. We already have the largest prison
population in Europe, yet the Govt seems desperate to lock ever more
people away, while preventing Maxine Carr from utilising HDC, a
thoroughly political decision merely to appease the right-wing gutter
press.

Basically, this Labour government is not the Labour of old, neither is
it Tory or liberal, but some weird hybrid, led by Tony Blair in a very
dogmatic, but wrong, fashion. I dread to think what Blair actually has
in his mind as the ideal blueprint for Britain over the next ten,
twenty years, but I'll bet not many citizens will like it much.

MM

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:47:18 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:46:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



Sad days indeed. Poverty and deprivation in abundance.

Really?

Yes, Andy, in the real world there was.

That's curious. I'm in the real world and did not see substantive
evidence of that at that time. However, I was approached by
somebody last week trying to sell the Big Issue and this wasn't under
the arches at Waterloo station.



7 years of "New" Labour)

The best we have had in countless decades.

I am basically an ABC, Anyone But Conservative. But New Lab, is aiming
for
desperately needed constitutional change, so they have to stay.

That doesn't compute. What little constitutional change is needed
doesn't require TB

Andy, the UK requires massive constitutional change, to rid ourselves of a
tier of parasites.

Such as cabinet ministers.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl