On Thursday, 5 September 2019 10:04:51 UTC+1, Stephen Cole wrote:
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young (under 45s).

This probably happens every September - it's the students registering at term-time addresses.

Owain

On 06/09/2019 09:32, Stephen Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

that is all the know how to do...tax and spend on layabouts ....


Its called €œredistribution of wealth€�, Jim. Specifically, were going to
redistribute Brians wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.


AS always that sounds very nice, until it's *you* they come after...


--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

"Spike" wrote in message
...
On 05/09/2019 19:59, Rod Speed wrote:
Stephen Cole wrote

150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority
of them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next
few weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election
will be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than
even in GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the €œnatural wastage€�
of older right/leave voters. Change is coming.

It always does, but its unlikely to see that fool Corbyn as PM.

"The total number of UK parliamentary electors increased by just over 1
million (2.3%) between December 2015 and December 2016, this partly
reflects high levels of public engagement with the EU referendum."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ticsforuk/2016

But the polls show that Corbyn hasnt got a hope in hell of being PM
currently.

On 06/09/2019 09:41, Vidcapper wrote:
On 06/09/2019 09:32, Stephen Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

that is all the know how to do...tax and spend on layabouts ....

Its called €œredistribution of wealth€�, Jim. Specifically, were going to
redistribute Brians wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

AS always that sounds very nice, until it's *you* they come after...

Cole has never yet managed to grasp that Labour governments 'come after'
everyone, especially the poor - but he was born after such interesting
times as the Winter of Discontent and has turned a blind eye to Blair's
multiple Middle-East wars of aggrandisement.


--
Spike

On 06/09/2019 10:41, Vidcapper wrote:
On 06/09/2019 09:32, Stephen Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

that is all the know how to do...tax and spend on layabouts ....


Its called €œredistribution of wealth€�, Jim. Specifically, were going to
redistribute Brians wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.


AS always that sounds very nice, until it's *you* they come after...


cole will never make that much to be bothered.....

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 20:02:05 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


But

In auto-contradicting mode again, you abnormal senile Australian pest? LOL

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On 06/09/2019 09:28, nightjar wrote:
On 05/09/2019 14:28, Norman Wells wrote:

It's rather the other way round.Â* A referendum would be a substitute
for a general election.Â* But a general election is what we currently
need because we have a government that is being prevented by
Parliament from governing.Â* And that has to be resolved.

That is entirely down to Boris. It was his insistence on a no deal
Brexit that lead a number of Conservative MPs, his brother included, to
put the national interest before their own careers. He single handedly
lost the government's working majority and, having lost control, nobody
trusts him enough to give it back.

But actually he hasn't insisted on a no deal Brexit. If he had, Farage
would not be saying at his conference that he will fight the
Conservatives in every seat in the land.

What Boris has done is insist on no deal being an option. He at least
appreciates the first rule of Negotiation 101 that you have to be
prepared to walk away with no deal rather than a bad deal.

He knows that he probably wouldn't win another referendum,

He doesn't have to.Â* We've had the one that mattered.

Aside from the fact that the evidence is that public opinion now favours
remain over leave, that referendum only gave the government a mandate to
leave the EU. It did not give it a mandate to leave in the most damaging
way possible.

It gave the government a mandate to leave the EU in the way the
government saw fit. The referendum set the direction and handed the
matter back to the government to implement.

People have a right to the sort of Brexit that the Leave
campaign described, which is not what they would get with a no deal
Brexit.

The people were not going to be consulted after the referendum. That
much was made very clear. 'The government will implement what you
decide' said the leaflet that came thudding through our letterboxes.
And it was supposed to be a 'once in a generation' opportunity for the
people to decide.

Besides, there are many who say the original question was too difficult
for voters to understand. Heaven alone knows how the public are
supposed to understand all the nuances of the different sorts of Brexit
there might be.

If Boris wants to be able to claim that the people back a no
deal Brexit, he can only do so if he gets a clear mandate for that
option in another referendum.

but thinks he could win a general election

Well, that's better surely than Corbyn who is running scared of one.

He isn't running scared. he simply isn't going to dance to Boris' tune.
Labour has already said it is quite willing to support a general
election in mid-November.

Never before in history has an opposition party spurned a chance to have
an election that could see them elected to power. It's supposed to be
what they want.

There's no getting away from it. Corbyn was unequivocal about wanting
an election and being ready for one just four days ago:

"When a government finds itself without a majority, the solution is not
to undermine dedmocracy. The solution is to let the people decide and
call a general election. It is the people, not an unelected Prime
Minister, who should determine our country's future. An election is the
democratic way forward."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN1gBxAfZh4

(from 3:02 in)

Now that one has been offered, it turns out he didn't really mean it at all.

He's running scared and denying the 'democratic way forward' he so nobly
espoused so little time ago.

On Friday, 6 September 2019 11:05:59 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"Spike" wrote in message
...
On 05/09/2019 19:59, Rod Speed wrote:
Stephen Cole wrote

150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority
of them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next
few weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election
will be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than
even in GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the €œnatural wastage€�
of older right/leave voters. Change is coming.

It always does, but its unlikely to see that fool Corbyn as PM.

"The total number of UK parliamentary electors increased by just over 1
million (2.3%) between December 2015 and December 2016, this partly
reflects high levels of public engagement with the EU referendum."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ticsforuk/2016

But the polls show that Corbyn hasnt got a hope in hell of being PM
currently.

The polls also said in 2016 that the vote would be to remain in the EU.
It could be that when some see the polls argree with their choice, then those think well I don't need to vote then. I believe this is more likely to be student mentality as I see this with students quite often regarding course work.
Studetns want the lap open longer hours so we opened at 8am instead of 9am while most turn up after lunch and wonder why we aren't willing to work until 6pm or even midnight, as some computer labs are open until 2am like the local take-aways.

On Friday, 6 September 2019 12:25:59 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
some computer labs are open until 2am like the local take-aways.

When I was a student we had access to labs 24 hours, and after 2 am was about the only time we could get a seat, or a logon prompt within 5 minutes.

Owain

On 6 Sep 2019 08:32:24 GMT
Stephen Cole wrote:



Its called €œredistribution of wealth€�, Jim. Specifically, were
going to redistribute Brians wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.


Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

--
Joe

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:28:15 +0100
nightjar wrote:



A recent study showed that, while the right wing leanings come with
age theory is true to some extent, it has also been found that there
is a generational effect as well. Not every generation starts from
the same base line and the current trend is for successive
generations to start off more left wing than their predecessors. That
means that, while members of that generation may well move to the
right as they age, they probably won't end up as far right as the
generation before them. The crossover point is not fixed.


It is also the case that political bias and Political Correctness in
education has steadily increased with time (Long March Through the
Institutions, Common Purpose, the EU
(https://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/e...g-materials_en)
etc.)

After a year or two out of education, the more intelligent ones will
see that and many will be quite annoyed about it. Also, my generation
pushed back against mainly Right-wing parents, but today's generation
have more Left-wing parents.

So it could just as easily go the other way.

--
Joe

On Friday, 6 September 2019 13:42:38 UTC+1, wrote:
On Friday, 6 September 2019 12:25:59 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
some computer labs are open until 2am like the local take-aways.

When I was a student we had access to labs 24 hours, and after 2 am was about the only time we could get a seat, or a logon prompt within 5 minutes.

Owain

Ah the old PDP8s those were the days. ;-)

Joe wrote:

On 6 Sep 2019 08:32:24 GMT
Stephen Cole wrote:



It's called "redistribution of wealth", Jim. Specifically, we're
going to redistribute Brian's wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.


Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

On the contrary, it very frequently does. Have you, for instance, read
the seminal works of Karl Marx on the subject?

--

Roger Hayter

On Friday, 6 September 2019 15:18:57 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
When I was a student we had access to labs 24 hours, and after 2 am was
about the only time we could get a seat, or a logon prompt within 5 minutes.
Ah the old PDP8s those were the days. ;-)

Only senior computing students had PDP access. They could get a logon prompt in seconds.

Might not have been able to do much with it, but ...

The rest of us had to put up with a VAX 11/750 crunching its way through 500 Minitab sessions for business students... all on 4 MB RAM. I had half MB RAM on my Atari!

Owain

On 06/09/2019 14:35, Joe wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:28:15 +0100
nightjar wrote:



A recent study showed that, while the right wing leanings come with
age theory is true to some extent, it has also been found that there
is a generational effect as well. Not every generation starts from
the same base line and the current trend is for successive
generations to start off more left wing than their predecessors. That
means that, while members of that generation may well move to the
right as they age, they probably won't end up as far right as the
generation before them. The crossover point is not fixed.


It is also the case that political bias and Political Correctness in
education has steadily increased with time (Long March Through the
Institutions, Common Purpose, the EU
(https://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/e...g-materials_en)
etc.)

After a year or two out of education, the more intelligent ones will
see that and many will be quite annoyed about it. Also, my generation
pushed back against mainly Right-wing parents, but today's generation
have more Left-wing parents.

That is why academics display a childlike innocence in their political bias.


So it could just as easily go the other way.



--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

On 06/09/2019 14:25, Joe wrote:
On 6 Sep 2019 08:32:24 GMT
Stephen Cole wrote:



Its called €œredistribution of wealth€�, Jim. Specifically, were
going to redistribute Brians wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.


Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

Because it hasn't a clue how to do it.

Marx simply treats it as if it is just 'there'


--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

On 06/09/2019 15:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
Joe wrote:

On 6 Sep 2019 08:32:24 GMT
Stephen Cole wrote:



It's called "redistribution of wealth", Jim. Specifically, we're
going to redistribute Brian's wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.


Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

On the contrary, it very frequently does. Have you, for instance, read
the seminal works of Karl Marx on the subject?

No mention of wealth creation anyehere in Marx


--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:39:45 +0100, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

Joe wrote:

On 6 Sep 2019 08:32:24 GMT
Stephen Cole wrote:



It's called "redistribution of wealth", Jim. Specifically, we're
going to redistribute Brian's wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.


Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

On the contrary, it very frequently does. Have you, for instance, read
the seminal works of Karl Marx on the subject?

Unfortunately the works of Karl Marx are not published in the Sun or
the Daily Mail. The masses believe what they are told by the
capitalists.

On 05/09/2019 10:04, Stephen Cole wrote:
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the €œnatural wastage€� of older
right/leave voters.

Looks like Boris goose is cooked. Change is coming.


There's nothing new in that, you always get new voters registering when
an election is pending.

Older people are usually already registered.

Simples!

On 05/09/2019 10:04, Stephen Cole wrote:
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the €œnatural wastage€� of older
right/leave voters.

Looks like Boris goose is cooked. Change is coming.


Not all of the new registrants will be 'left leaning' by any means. This
is just a myth propounded by Remainers.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 6 September 2019 11:05:59 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"Spike" wrote in message
...
On 05/09/2019 19:59, Rod Speed wrote:
Stephen Cole wrote

150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the
majority
of them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the
next
few weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general
election
will be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning
than
even in GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the €œnatural
wastage€�
of older right/leave voters. Change is coming.

It always does, but its unlikely to see that fool Corbyn as PM.

"The total number of UK parliamentary electors increased by just over 1
million (2.3%) between December 2015 and December 2016, this partly
reflects high levels of public engagement with the EU referendum."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ticsforuk/2016

But the polls show that Corbyn hasnt got a hope in hell of being PM
currently.

The polls also said in 2016 that the vote would be to remain in the EU.

With the narrow result in that referendum and the very high dont
know percentage its not surprising that that one got it wrong. The
margin now with Corbyn is nothing even remotely like as close.

It could be that when some see the polls argree with their
choice, then those think well I don't need to vote then.

But given how poorly Corbyn currently polls, that wouldnt happen.

I believe this is more likely to be student mentality as I
see this with students quite often regarding course work.
Studetns want the lap open longer hours so we opened
at 8am instead of 9am while most turn up after lunch and
wonder why we aren't willing to work until 6pm or even
midnight, as some computer labs are open until 2am like
the local take-aways.

Irrelevant to Corbyn's prospects as PM.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 06/09/2019 15:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
Joe wrote:

On 6 Sep 2019 08:32:24 GMT
Stephen Cole wrote:



It's called "redistribution of wealth", Jim. Specifically, we're
going to redistribute Brian's wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.


Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

On the contrary, it very frequently does. Have you, for instance, read
the seminal works of Karl Marx on the subject?

No mention of wealth creation anyehere in Marx

Oh yes, just like he completely forgot to mention social class.


--

Roger Hayter

On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 04:54:16 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

The polls also said in 2016 that the vote would be to remain in the EU.

With the narrow result in that referendum

Whether narrow or not narrow, it's all NONE of yours, senile Ozzie pest!

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 06/09/2019 15:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
Joe wrote:

On 6 Sep 2019 08:32:24 GMT
Stephen Cole wrote:



It's called "redistribution of wealth", Jim. Specifically, we're
going to redistribute Brian's wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.


Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

On the contrary, it very frequently does. Have you, for instance, read
the seminal works of Karl Marx on the subject?

No mention of wealth creation anyehere in Marx

Oh yes, just like he completely forgot to mention social class.



He was too €˜busy with his servant.

How does a Marxist justify not only having a servant but taking advantage
of her, to use a polite phrase?

Rather like the Russian leaders and their Dachas and, nearer to home, John
McDonald and his two houses, Scargill still being housed by the miners,
.......

I suppose it is no different to someone who tries to pretend he isnt a
racist having supported special rules to prevent those with Asian names
getting a job.


Meanwhile, I see Boris has (unsurprisingly) caught you all napping. It is a
pity he doesnt read some of the tripe posted by the Remainers on here,
hed find it hilarious.

On 06/09/2019 19:05, Rambo wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:39:45 +0100, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

Joe wrote:

On 6 Sep 2019 08:32:24 GMT
Stephen Cole wrote:



It's called "redistribution of wealth", Jim. Specifically, we're
going to redistribute Brian's wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.


Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

On the contrary, it very frequently does. Have you, for instance, read
the seminal works of Karl Marx on the subject?

Unfortunately the works of Karl Marx are not published in the Sun or
the Daily Mail. The masses believe what they are told by the
capitalists.

And the psedo intellectals believe in what they are told by te radical
,arxists, who always lie.
Marxs view of production is completely invalidated by the 20th century
rise of automated production.
He saw wealth as ultimately produced by human labour. It isn't. Today
its produced by a few clever people designing machines that run on
fossil fuel that have totally replaced labour.

At a stroke Marxism has becime totally and utterly irrelevant along with
the so called working class it purported to represent.

Which is why socialism has been modified and adapted to appeal to the
people who think they are smart - the technicians of the world, and
given a moral ringe to appeal to women and feminized men.


--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 06/09/2019 18:08, Tufnell Park wrote:
On 05/09/2019 10:04, Stephen Cole wrote:

150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the €œnatural wastage€� of older
right/leave voters.

Looks like Boris goose is cooked. Change is coming.

There's nothing new in that, you always get new voters registering when
an election is pending. Older people are usually already registered. Simples!

The surge in voter registrations in 2016 didn't help Comrade Cole's
Cause either:

"The total number of UK parliamentary electors increased by just over 1
million (2.3%) between December 2015 and December 2016, this partly
reflects high levels of public engagement with the EU referendum."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ticsforuk/2016

--
Spike

On 06/09/2019 11:46, Norman Wells wrote:
On 06/09/2019 09:28, nightjar wrote:
....
That is entirely down to Boris. It was his insistence on a no deal
Brexit that lead a number of Conservative MPs, his brother included,
to put the national interest before their own careers. He single
handedly lost the government's working majority and, having lost
control, nobody trusts him enough to give it back.

But actually he hasn't insisted on a no deal Brexit.

He has said he would have the UK leave on 31st October, deal or no deal.
He has made no serious moves to negotiate a deal and has suspended
parliament, so there wouldn't be enough time to debate it if he did. His
intentions couldn't be more clear if they were written in 10 foot high
letters across the front of the Palace of Westminster.

If he had, Farage
would not be saying at his conference that he will fight the
Conservatives in every seat in the land....

That is just Nigel throwing his toys out of the pram, because he isn't
getting the media attention he thinks he deserves. If it were about
Brexit, rather than about Nigel wanting to feel important, he would say
that The Brexit party would not be putting up any candidates in a
general election and urging anybody who would have voted for them to
vote Conservative.

David Cameron didn't call the referendum because he thought that UKIP
would ever be a serious force in parliament. He called it because he
thought they could take enough votes from the Conservatives to lose them
a general election. The same applies now with TBP. If Boris is going to
be the one to take the UK out of the EU, he needs to win Labour marginal
seats in Leave voting areas. At Peterborough, the Brexit party took
Leave voters from Labour, but far more from the Conservatives, with the
result that Labour won. Had TBP supporters voted Conservative, it would
have been a decisive Conservative win. The same is likely to happen in
any Labour marginal in any Leave area.

....
There's no getting away from it.Â* Corbyn was unequivocal about wanting
an election and being ready for one just four days ago:
....
Now that one has been offered, it turns out he didn't really mean it at
all.

He's running scared and denying the 'democratic way forward' he so nobly
espoused so little time ago.

As I said, Labour is more than willing to have a general election, but
when it suits them, in November, not when it suits Boris.


--
Colin Bignell

"nightjar" wrote in message
news
On 06/09/2019 11:46, Norman Wells wrote:
On 06/09/2019 09:28, nightjar wrote:
...
That is entirely down to Boris. It was his insistence on a no deal
Brexit that lead a number of Conservative MPs, his brother included, to
put the national interest before their own careers. He single handedly
lost the government's working majority and, having lost control, nobody
trusts him enough to give it back.

But actually he hasn't insisted on a no deal Brexit.

He has said he would have the UK leave on 31st October, deal or no deal.

Yes, to put a bomb under Barnier.

He has made no serious moves to negotiate a deal

Thats a bare faced lie.

and has suspended parliament,

Must be why we saw the **** fight last week.

so there wouldn't be enough time to debate it if he did.

Another bare faced remoaner lie.

His intentions couldn't be more clear if they were written in 10 foot high
letters across the front of the Palace of Westminster.

Even more flagrantly dishonest than you
usually manage and thats saying something.

If he had, Farage would not be saying at his conference that he will
fight the Conservatives in every seat in the land....

That is just Nigel throwing his toys out of the pram, because he isn't
getting the media attention he thinks he deserves.

Even more flagrantly dishonest than you
usually manage and thats saying something.

If it were about Brexit, rather than about Nigel wanting to feel
important, he would say that The Brexit party would not be putting up any
candidates in a general election and urging anybody who would have voted
for them to vote Conservative.

Even more sillier than you usually
manage and thats saying something.

David Cameron didn't call the referendum because he thought that UKIP
would ever be a serious force in parliament. He called it because he
thought they could take enough votes from the Conservatives to lose them a
general election.

Nope, he had the referendum stupidly assuming that it would
produce a result that would shut up the Tory brexiteers.

The same applies now with TBP. If Boris is going to be the one to take the
UK out of the EU, he needs to win Labour marginal seats in Leave voting
areas.

BULL**** given the Labour poll results.

At Peterborough, the Brexit party took Leave voters from Labour, but far
more from the Conservatives, with the result that Labour won.

One seat proves nothing, stupid.

Had TBP supporters voted Conservative, it would have been a decisive
Conservative win. The same is likely to happen in any Labour marginal in
any Leave area.

Even more sillier than you usually
manage and thats saying something.

There's no getting away from it. Corbyn was unequivocal about wanting an
election and being ready for one just four days ago:

Now that one has been offered, it turns out he didn't really mean it at
all.

He's running scared and denying the 'democratic way forward' he so nobly
espoused so little time ago.

As I said, Labour is more than willing to have a general election, but
when it suits them, in November, not when it suits Boris.

We'll see...

On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:09:31 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Yes, to put a bomb under Barnier.

Barnier? That's a European. So, NONE of yours, senile Ozzie pest!

We'll see...

We'll see you trolling in all these groups like there was no tomorrow, you
85-year-old trolling senile pest!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
That is why academics display a childlike innocence in their political
bias.

Good to know you don't consider yourself an academic then.

And your choice of name even stranger given natural philosophy was largely
confined to academics of the time.

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

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

Because it hasn't a clue how to do it.


Thought you objected to Blair being so wealthy?

--
*Isn't it a bit unnerving that doctors call what they do "practice?"

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

In article ,
Tufnell Park wrote:
On 05/09/2019 10:04, Stephen Cole wrote:
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the ”natural wastage• of older
right/leave voters.

Looks like Boris‘ goose is cooked. Change is coming.


Not all of the new registrants will be 'left leaning' by any means. This
is just a myth propounded by Remainers.

Very true, given how many kids Rees-Mogg has.

--
*What do you call a dinosaur with an extensive vocabulary? A thesaurus.*

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

On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 13:41:19 +0100
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

Because it hasn't a clue how to do it.


Thought you objected to Blair being so wealthy?


How much of it did he create? As far as I can see, he just persuades
others to hand over their wealth to him. A talent, certainly, but not
wealth creation.

--
Joe

On 07/09/2019 16:59, Joe wrote:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 13:41:19 +0100
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

Because it hasn't a clue how to do it.


Thought you objected to Blair being so wealthy?


How much of it did he create? As far as I can see, he just persuades
others to hand over their wealth to him. A talent, certainly, but not
wealth creation.


Socialists have a 'blind eye' when it comes to their own wealth, it is
only when others have money they have a problem. They solve that problem
by grabbing it by what ever means they can.

Brian Reay wrote:
On 07/09/2019 16:59, Joe wrote:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 13:41:19 +0100
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

Because it hasn't a clue how to do it.


Thought you objected to Blair being so wealthy?


How much of it did he create? As far as I can see, he just persuades
others to hand over their wealth to him. A talent, certainly, but not
wealth creation.


Socialists have a 'blind eye' when it comes to their own wealth, it is
only when others have money they have a problem. They solve that problem
by grabbing it by what ever means they can.


Tony Blair is not a socialist, Brian. HTH.

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

On 07/09/2019 17:34, Brian Reay wrote:
On 07/09/2019 16:59, Joe wrote:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 13:41:19 +0100
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Â*Â*Â* The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?
Because it hasn't a clue how to do it.


Thought you objected to Blair being so wealthy?


How much of it did he create? As far as I can see, he just persuades
others to hand over their wealth to him. A talent, certainly, but not
wealth creation.


Socialists have a 'blind eye' when it comes to their own wealth, it is
only when others have money they have a problem. They solve that problem
by grabbing it by what ever means they can.



Socialism and the Left are pure hypocrisy. The only real skill a
socialist has is lying.

And they have conned the lower classes and the lower middle classes for
years.


--
"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and
higher education positively fortifies it."

- Stephen Vizinczey

On 07/09/2019 18:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/09/2019 17:34, Brian Reay wrote:
On 07/09/2019 16:59, Joe wrote:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 13:41:19 +0100
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Â*Â*Â* The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?
Because it hasn't a clue how to do it.


Thought you objected to Blair being so wealthy?


How much of it did he create? As far as I can see, he just persuades
others to hand over their wealth to him. A talent, certainly, but not
wealth creation.


Socialists have a 'blind eye' when it comes to their own wealth, it is
only when others have money they have a problem. They solve that
problem by grabbing it by what ever means they can.



Socialism and the Left are pure hypocrisy. The only real skill a
socialist has is lying.

And they have conned the lower classes and the lower middle classes for
years.

It is the ideal refuge for the underachievers. They have someone to
blame for their predicament and are promised handouts, all without
having to work.

On 07/09/2019 18:52, Brian Reay wrote:
On 07/09/2019 18:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/09/2019 17:34, Brian Reay wrote:
On 07/09/2019 16:59, Joe wrote:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 13:41:19 +0100
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Â*Â*Â* The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?
Because it hasn't a clue how to do it.


Thought you objected to Blair being so wealthy?


How much of it did he create? As far as I can see, he just persuades
others to hand over their wealth to him. A talent, certainly, but not
wealth creation.


Socialists have a 'blind eye' when it comes to their own wealth, it
is only when others have money they have a problem. They solve that
problem by grabbing it by what ever means they can.



Socialism and the Left are pure hypocrisy. The only real skill a
socialist has is lying.

And they have conned the lower classes and the lower middle classes
for years.

It is the ideal refuge for the underachievers. They have someone to
blame for their predicament and are promised handouts, all without
having to work.

And are told they are heroic victims,






--
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your
oppressors."
- George Orwell

On 07/09/2019 10:09, Rod Speed wrote:


"nightjar" wrote in message
news
....
He has made no serious moves to negotiate a deal

Thats a bare faced lie...

Ask Amber Rudd.

--
Colin Bignell

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 09:59:30 +0100, nightjar wrote:

On 07/09/2019 10:09, Rod Speed wrote:


"nightjar" wrote in message
news
...
He has made no serious moves to negotiate a deal

That’s a bare faced lie...

Ask Amber Rudd.

get as much sense out of agent cob and dinah

--
www.abelard.org