RIP Michael Foot

[dune]

What a clever idea, pandy to the NIMBYs to get votes

 

I have a vague recollection of you complaining about something being buried near where you live, remind me what it was. It might not have even been you though so sorry if i'm mistaken.

[TopGun]

The main problem is those hideous wind farms that are a blot on landscape and produce very little electricity. The answer is to build big nuclear plants and be done with it.

 

Many people are not offended by wind farms anyway. But that is something we will all have to disagree about.

 

The main point is that wind farms are effective at many times. Wind farms contribute lots of energy to EU nations. For example, at one point in January Spain was using energy that was over 50% generated by its wind farms. In its recent annual results Drax Power that produces 7% of the UK's power normally from coal said its profits were down because of the extra wind energy now on tap to suppliers.

 

The gripe by the antis here recently is that in January in the UK wind contributed virtually nothing to the mix as we had a period of high pressure that meant low wind speeds and freezing weather. This is true but it is an isolated time period.

 

The UK has the best wind speeds in Europe because of the jet stream and that is available for much of the year. It might be the case that wind is only one part of a diverse energy generation mix but it can be an important one that we use first when it is available. Once again, you don't have to believe in man-made climate change to see the value of using a free and non-polluting infinite resource over finite fossil fuel alternatives.

 

Labour is putting forward use of wind, nuke, gas and other fledgling renewables that is backed up by coal. Anti-wind guys moan about the cost of keeping coal power stations in reserve but that is actually nonsense in the bigger scheme of things as it is well worth paying a subsidy to energy companies to have extra energy on tap if required.

 

The other point is that there will be times with wind when we are producing more energy than we need. That can be sold to countries who don't have the same resources.

 

Mixed energy generation can be a win-win for all the UK in terms of the economy, energy security and climate change for those who believe it (I do personally).

[Johnny Bognor]

HAHAHAHA!! How the hell does it even come close to 'sounding very much like'?!? Jesus you're dumb!

 

Hold on, you're intending to vote BNP? Why am I not suprised?! Dumb and BNP go hand in hand. This is my last reply to you dune, you're going on ignore! I refuse to be drawn into a 'debate' (although with you it feels like I'm having to give you a lesson) with a vile racist.

 

 

Out of interest TLS, are you against all forms of discrimination and prejudice?

[TopGun]

I have a vague recollection of you complaining about something being buried near where you live, remind me what it was. It might not have even been you though so sorry if i'm mistaken.

 

Yeah, not me Dune. Only thing buried near me is landfill which is another thing we need to reduce. I'm all in favour of Energy from Waste (incineration) plants like Marchwood also. Germany has a good gig there but in many places here where such proposals get put forward, a strong protest group forms that scares locals by haranguing them outside supermarkets with nonsense about air quality effects. Incineration has a bad record in the past but that was before the introduction of proven emissions abatement techniques. Marchwood is an excellent example of energy from waste that is well within EU and Environment Agency air quality standards.

Edited 10 March, 2010 by TopGun

[AndyNorthernSaints]

Has there ever been a poster so stupid posting on this forum? i'm guessing he might be that Nazi boy Stanley?

[Wes Tender]

Lower taxes for the rich; lower taxes for corporations.

 

Freedom from money-market regulation for the banks; freedom from environmental regulation for corporations.

 

Lower taxes means poorer public services and more user-fees. Greater freedom often means more greed and exploitation.

 

Lower taxes sounds good - but what are the practical effects on society as a whole? Greater freedom sounds great - but who is it, specifically, getting this new "freedom"?

 

Your first sentence just smacks of the language of the left, the snouts in the troughs attitude perpetuated by the Socialist Worker. If for example you changed that to fairer taxes for the top earners, it sounds a bit more reasonable. As I have said before, there comes a point beyond which the wealthy either find ways to avoid paying above a level they deem to be unfair, or they emigrate. You yourself seem to have emigrated unless I'm mistaken. Better life over there, is it?

 

Lower taxes on companies enables them to invest more into their businesses, thus improving productivity and growing the business to take on more employees. You see, there are two sides to the coin.

 

Lower taxes do not necessarily mean poorer services. Misuse of public funds through over-staffing, wasteful bureaucracy and misdirection of funds through poor priority choices mean poorer services. What the hell are "user fees"? Is it some Canadian thing?

 

Greater freedom often also means that those with the freedom have a damned sight better idea to do with it than the politicos and bureacrats, all those outreach workers (whatever they are) and various social workers whose over-inflated jobs are advertised in the Guardian.

 

The current Government think that they know best how to run the lives of British citizens, so their desire is to interfere at every opportunity into the lives of individuals, to molly-coddle them into a Nanny state, dipping their grubby little mitts into our back pockets to surreptitiously extract as much tax revenue as they can, believing foolishly that we don't know that they are doing it. Well, I hope that they get their come-uppance in May or whenever Brown thinks he has his best chance of staying in Number 10.

[buctootim]

Dear old Dune and Wes, opinions not confused by too many facts. Ooh look. There we are, high tax Britain, at 22nd place just below the US for personal taxation (and dont forget in the US you have to pay for your own healthcare). http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_wed_sin_wor-total-tax-wedge-single-worker

 

or 132nd if you want to look at corporate taxation

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_rat_of_pro-taxation-total-tax-rate-profit

 

and 29th for total tax burden, sandwiched between Malta and Romania. http://www.photius.com/rankings/tax_burden_country_ranks_2009.html

Edited 10 March, 2010 by buctootim

[Whitey Grandad]

You mean like the 6 nuclear plants the current socialist government are commissioning?

 

Thick mong.

No need for the abuse. The govenment has dithered for over 10 years and everybody knows it.

[Whitey Grandad]

Many people are not offended by wind farms anyway. But that is something we will all have to disagree about.

 

The main point is that wind farms are effective at many times. Wind farms contribute lots of energy to EU nations. For example, at one point in January Spain was using energy that was over 50% generated by its wind farms. In its recent annual results Drax Power that produces 7% of the UK's power normally from coal said its profits were down because of the extra wind energy now on tap to suppliers.

 

The gripe by the antis here recently is that in January in the UK wind contributed virtually nothing to the mix as we had a period of high pressure that meant low wind speeds and freezing weather. This is true but it is an isolated time period.

 

The UK has the best wind speeds in Europe because of the jet stream and that is available for much of the year. It might be the case that wind is only one part of a diverse energy generation mix but it can be an important one that we use first when it is available. Once again, you don't have to believe in man-made climate change to see the value of using a free and non-polluting infinite resource over finite fossil fuel alternatives.

 

Labour is putting forward use of wind, nuke, gas and other fledgling renewables that is backed up by coal. Anti-wind guys moan about the cost of keeping coal power stations in reserve but that is actually nonsense in the bigger scheme of things as it is well worth paying a subsidy to energy companies to have extra energy on tap if required.

 

The other point is that there will be times with wind when we are producing more energy than we need. That can be sold to countries who don't have the same resources.

 

Mixed energy generation can be a win-win for all the UK in terms of the economy, energy security and climate change for those who believe it (I do personally).

Wind power is only viable with the enormous subsidies that distort the energy market. All methods of power generation have their problems but wind power is never going to be anything but a small part of the solution, and at a hideous cost to our environment.

[Hamilton Saint]

Your first sentence just smacks of the language of the left, the snouts in the troughs attitude perpetuated by the Socialist Worker. If for example you changed that to fairer taxes for the top earners, it sounds a bit more reasonable. As I have said before, there comes a point beyond which the wealthy either find ways to avoid paying above a level they deem to be unfair, or they emigrate. You yourself seem to have emigrated unless I'm mistaken. Better life over there, is it?

 

Lower taxes on companies enables them to invest more into their businesses, thus improving productivity and growing the business to take on more employees. You see, there are two sides to the coin.

 

Lower taxes do not necessarily mean poorer services. Misuse of public funds through over-staffing, wasteful bureaucracy and misdirection of funds through poor priority choices mean poorer services. What the hell are "user fees"? Is it some Canadian thing?

 

Greater freedom often also means that those with the freedom have a damned sight better idea to do with it than the politicos and bureacrats, all those outreach workers (whatever they are) and various social workers whose over-inflated jobs are advertised in the Guardian.

 

The current Government think that they know best how to run the lives of British citizens, so their desire is to interfere at every opportunity into the lives of individuals, to molly-coddle them into a Nanny state, dipping their grubby little mitts into our back pockets to surreptitiously extract as much tax revenue as they can, believing foolishly that we don't know that they are doing it. Well, I hope that they get their come-uppance in May or whenever Brown thinks he has his best chance of staying in Number 10.

 

Yes, there are "two sides to the coin". I'm giving mine; you're giving yours. If my prose "just smacks of the language of the left", well - guess what - yours "smacks" of the language of the right - with the de rigueur references to the Socialist Worker and The Guardian.

 

I emigrated with my family when I was a teenager, BTW. My parents' decision.

 

"User fees" are charges paid for a service or activity that used to be funded by the state, based on the philosophy that if you use it, you pay for it. Makes sense in some circumstances, but not in others. Some institutions and services require government subsidy.

Edited 11 March, 2010 by Hamilton Saint

[buctootim]

Wind power is only viable with the enormous subsidies that distort the energy market. All methods of power generation have their problems but wind power is never going to be anything but a small part of the solution, and at a hideous cost to our environment.

 

No its not. Economicly viable with oil at $70 a barrel - and its currently at $80 and going higher. Anyway nearly all future UK wind farms will be at least 12 miles offshore where most people will never see them.

http://energyclub.wesp.oli.nl/?q=content/wind-power-record-spain-537-total-electricity-demand

Edited 11 March, 2010 by buctootim

[bungle]

If you don't have an overall majority, then you don't have overall control. This makes it very difficult to take firm and decisive action as maybe required.

 

The markets are expecting us to deal with the debt problem (which is currently £924,979,812,200, up £1,454,623,749 since I posted it on monday evening) and they will look at how the hell we are going to get it down.

 

It's not spin, it's common sense.

 

Looks like you have been bought by Ashcroft and are incapable of rational thought.

 

Greece and the UK. Two "strong" governments. The two countries with the biggest debt problem in Europe.

 

The facts bear it out. You have been bought, but others won't be.

[bungle]

Remember, the only party planning to raise taxes after the election is Ashcroft's Tories (luckily he's avoided paying £127million in tax, so he won't mind too much).

 

VAT up to 20% should they form a government. Another tax rise which will hit the poor much harder.

[Wes Tender]

I emigrated with my family when I was a teenager, BTW. My parents' decision.

 

Therefore although you are entitled to an opinion in just the same way that you are on footballing matters, otherwise your opinions naturally carry less weight, as you do not live here and pay Income tax or Council tax, you don't buy petrol and experience the roads which would be more expected of a third World country, the Health Service and Education, the overwheening bureaucracy, the benefit culture, the increasing lawlessness, etc.

 

Easier to hold Liberal views when you are thousands of miles away, but I'm not about to comment on how the Canadians run their affairs because apart from two holidays there, I am not qualified because I have not experienced normal life over there. Presumably, it has been several years since you have had first hand experience of life over here.

[dune]

Remember, the only party planning to raise taxes after the election is Ashcroft's Tories (luckily he's avoided paying £127million in tax, so he won't mind too much).

 

VAT up to 20% should they form a government. Another tax rise which will hit the poor much harder.

 

To be fair the VAT cut to 15% made very little noticeable difference so raising it to 20% won't be noticed too much either. It's a shame it has to go up, but I think everyone (except Gordon Brown) realises we need to tackle the debt mountain. The longer we leave our debts spiraling out of control the more painful it's going to be when we do face up to reality.

[Wes Tender]

Remember, the only party planning to raise taxes after the election is Ashcroft's Tories (luckily he's avoided paying £127million in tax, so he won't mind too much).

 

VAT up to 20% should they form a government. Another tax rise which will hit the poor much harder.

 

My God, you must be really naive if you don't believe that there are going to be swingeing increases in taxation if Labour somehow manage to remain in power. And what is this arrogant use of the word "remember"? Are you trying to lecture everybody about something that is apparently common knowledge only in your mind?

 

Did you hear on the news today about those MPs up in court for fiddling their expenses? Three Labour and one Conservative.

 

No comment about the abolition of the 10% tax band and the effect that has had on the poor?

 

You're opinions are equally as blinkered on political matters as they are on football. You're consistent in your inconsistency.

[View From The Top]

To be fair the VAT cut to 15% made very little noticeable difference so raising it to 20% won't be noticed too much either. It's a shame it has to go up, but I think everyone (except Gordon Brown) realises we need to tackle the debt mountain. The longer we leave our debts spiraling out of control the more painful it's going to be when we do face up to reality.

 

So a tory tax hike won't be noticed at all will it?

 

:smt044

[solentstars]

Has there ever been a poster so stupid posting on this forum? i'm guessing he might be that Nazi boy Stanley?

 

see you noted the same mindset.

anyway hes making us all laugh .

[ecuk268]

see you noted the same mindset.

anyway hes making us all laugh .

 

He gets his views from the Daily Express (which is slightly to the right of Genghis Khan) so everything he says must be true. This was the paper that supported Hitler in the '30s.

[TopGun]

Wind power is only viable with the enormous subsidies that distort the energy market. All methods of power generation have their problems but wind power is never going to be anything but a small part of the solution, and at a hideous cost to our environment.

 

If you checked it out you'd discover that all virtually power sources have benefitted from subsidies when first introduced. The point of it is to act as a catalyst to spur adoption and technology on.

 

Have you considered the subsidy that nuclear receives in terms of money spent by the NDA to clear up contaminated sites and store radioactive waste? Now that is massive.

 

I normally have good respect for WG's views but it frustrates me when people bleat out the same old fallacies about wind within a wider mix.

Edited 11 March, 2010 by TopGun

[Whitey Grandad]

If you checked it out you'd discover that all virtually power sources have benefitted from subsidies when first introduced. The point of it is to act as a catalyst to spur adoption and technology on.

 

Have you considered the subsidy that nuclear receives in terms of money spent by the NDA to clear up contaminated sites and store radioactive waste? Now that is massive.

 

I normally have good respect for WG's views but it frustrates me when people bleat out the same old fallacies about wind within a wider mix.

I don't normally post without checking anything out (including climate change ), and I did say that all sources of power have their problems, but nobody pretends that wind power is the answer to our energy problems and can never provide more than a fraction of our requirements. Nuclear fission power, with alll its horrible drawbacks, is the only possible solution for the next 50 years or so until possibly fusion reactors become viable.

 

Having said that, we do sit on 400 years of coal deposits, and if only we can develop effective carbon sequestration then perhaps we could use those.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I don't normally post without checking anything out (including climate change ), and I did say that all sources of power have their problems, but nobody pretends that wind power is the answer to our energy problems and can never provide more than a fraction of our requirements. Nuclear fission power, with alll its horrible drawbacks, is the only possible solution for the next 50 years or so until possibly fusion reactors become viable.

 

Having said that, we do sit on 400 years of coal deposits, and if only we can develop effective carbon sequestration then perhaps we could use those.

 

...we certainly could...

 

Remind me who shut those down again?

 

;-)

[solentstars]

He gets his views from the Daily Express (which is slightly to the right of Genghis Khan) so everything he says must be true. This was the paper that supported Hitler in the '30s.

sorry mate it was the daily mail who were hitler lovers those days but i know what you mean,beware the enemy within.

[View From The Top]

Having said that, we do sit on 400 years of coal deposits, and if only we can develop effective carbon sequestration then perhaps we could use those.

 

But Thatcher told us the "Dash For Gas" meant we didn't need the coal as we had enough North Sea gas to last centuries.

 

She wouldn't have been telling porkies would she?

[Whitey Grandad]

I was talking about this to a welshman the last time that I was in the area and he said that if you opened the pits now you'd never get anybody to work down them. 'The youngsters just don't wanna know' he said (in a welsh accent). Do you think that Health and Safety would let us ever open them again?

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I was talking about this to a welshman the last time that I was in the area and he said that if you opened the pits now you'd never get anybody to work down them. 'The youngsters just don't wanna know' he said (in a welsh accent). Do you think that Health and Safety would let us ever open them again?

 

If the mine shafts were fuly supported, miners worse protection on their faces to prevent them from getting 'black lung' etc, regular safety checks were carried out so that the conditions that causes that gas (the name escapes me) was not created; I'm sure if the government wanted to push the re-opening of the mines through, they would.

[ecuk268]

sorry mate it was the daily mail who were hitler lovers those days but i know what you mean,beware the enemy within.

 

My apologies, you are correct. The Mail was owned by Viscount Rothermere, a personal friend of both Hitler and Mussolini. He supported Chamberlains's policy of appeasement and objected to Jewish refugees coming here from Germany.

 

Not really changed much has it?

[solentstars]

My apologies, you are correct. The Mail was owned by Viscount Rothermere, a personal friend of both Hitler and Mussolini. He supported Chamberlains's policy of appeasement and objected to Jewish refugees coming here from Germany.

 

Not really changed much has it?

your right it has not changed ,i class it has a hate paper.:Dbut those days most of the Establishment and big business thought along those lines.

[buctootim]

if you opened the pits now you'd never get anybody to work down them. Do you think that Health and Safety would let us ever open them again?

 

I'm sure if the government wanted to push the re-opening of the mines through, they would.

 

 

Er we do still have coal mines yer know

http://www.ukcoal.com/

[Whitey Grandad]

Er we do still have coal mines yer know

http://www.ukcoal.com/

I have always said, on the whole you shouldn't generalise.

[TopGun]

If the mine shafts were fuly supported, miners worse protection on their faces to prevent them from getting 'black lung' etc, regular safety checks were carried out so that the conditions that causes that gas (the name escapes me) was not created; I'm sure if the government wanted to push the re-opening of the mines through, they would.

 

In any case companies like UK Coal don't want to go to the expense of new deep mining. They'd far rather run open cast mines which are much cheaper although very controversial in terms of environment.

Edited 11 March, 2010 by TopGun

[View From The Top]

I was talking about this to a welshman the last time that I was in the area and he said that if you opened the pits now you'd never get anybody to work down them. 'The youngsters just don't wanna know' he said (in a welsh accent). Do you think that Health and Safety would let us ever open them again?

 

I live in an area with a rich mining history and the sentiments are similar.

[Johnny Bognor]

Looks like you have been bought by Ashcroft and are incapable of rational thought.

 

Greece and the UK. Two "strong" governments. The two countries with the biggest debt problem in Europe.

 

The facts bear it out. You have been bought, but others won't be.

 

 

Are you seriously suggesting that the mountains of debt built up by the UK and Greece are inextricably linked to FPTP voting??????

 

I thought it was all the bankers fault.

 

It has more to do with the fact that the UK and Greece have had total ****s in charge, rather than how they were (or weren't as the case may be) voted in. No-one voted for Fraudon and no-one voted for Medolsome - you're precious PR would have made no difference.

[bungle]

Are you seriously suggesting that the mountains of debt built up by the UK and Greece are inextricably linked to FPTP voting??????

 

I thought it was all the bankers fault.

 

It has more to do with the fact that the UK and Greece have had total ****s in charge, rather than how they were (or weren't as the case may be) voted in. No-one voted for Fraudon and no-one voted for Medolsome - you're precious PR would have made no difference.

 

No, what it goes to prove is that a PR government doesn't lead to financial disaster, whereas Ashcroft's Tories are trying to say PR/hung parliament would lead to economic collapse - and he has successfully bought you.

[Hamilton Saint]

Therefore although you are entitled to an opinion in just the same way that you are on footballing matters, otherwise your opinions naturally carry less weight, as you do not live here and pay Income tax or Council tax, you don't buy petrol and experience the roads which would be more expected of a third World country, the Health Service and Education, the overwheening bureaucracy, the benefit culture, the increasing lawlessness, etc.

 

Easier to hold Liberal views when you are thousands of miles away, but I'm not about to comment on how the Canadians run their affairs because apart from two holidays there, I am not qualified because I have not experienced normal life over there. Presumably, it has been several years since you have had first hand experience of life over here.

 

 

Did you actually read through my contributions to this thread? The point you make is a valid one, but it actually criticises me for something I wasn't doing.

 

My main concern was the sloppy use of the term "socialism" and "socialist". If you want to talk specifics in discussing political philosophy, it's important to get the basic terms straight. My argument was pitched at the level of general philosophy, not the specifics of day-to-day conditions in Britain, which, as you point out, I am not in a position to judge.

 

My other intervention in this thread was to criticise the tactic of labelling people as fellow-travellers of a demonised political movement merely because they share the same stage, or participate in the same public protest. I wasn't debating the specific policies or tactics of the two groups in question, just identifying an illegitimate debating technique.

[Fuengirola Saint]

Are you seriously suggesting that the mountains of debt built up by the UK and Greece are inextricably linked to FPTP voting??????

 

I thought it was all the bankers fault.

 

It has more to do with the fact that the UK and Greece have had total ****s in charge, rather than how they were (or weren't as the case may be) voted in. No-one voted for Fraudon and no-one voted for Medolsome - you're precious PR would have made no difference.

 

Weren´t the Greek government which presided over their deficit Conservative and the incoming Socialist government totally clueless about the scale of the problem?

[Johnny Bognor]

No, what it goes to prove is that a PR government doesn't lead to financial disaster, whereas Ashcroft's Tories are trying to say PR/hung parliament would lead to economic collapse - and he has successfully bought you.

 

We'll have to agree to disgree on this and when we get a hung parliament in the not too distant future, we will see what happens.

 

Charter 2010 are an independent body setup to consider the consequences of a hung parliament. The founder Lord Owen (the former Labour minister and SDP leader) warns that A return to the "utterly dreadful" political vacuum of 1974 could destroy international economic confidence in Britain just when it needs it most, Lord Owen warned this morning. Interviewed on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, the former Labour minister and SDP leader urged positive and early discussion of how to turn a possible hung parliament in 2010 into a stable and representative government capable of tackling the UK's fiscal crisis head-on and protecting our AAA credit rating.

Has Ashcroft bought him too?

It is clear that in terms of dealing with the defecit, under these conditions, concerns those of all political persuasions....

http://www.charter2010.co.uk/news/pros-and-cons-hung-parliament

 

Most investment experts expect shares to fall if there is a hung parliament

http://www.charter2010.co.uk/news/shares-will-fall-if-theres-hung-parliament

 

However, it appears that a hung parliament is preferable to a Fraudon government. http://www.charter2010.co.uk/news/split-decision-better-brown-victory.

 

I suppose being able to do nothing is better than allowing Clown to **** it up even more.

 

 

For the interests of balance, however, this is an interesting article that supports your view: http://www.charter2010.co.uk/news/tory-blackmail-claim-over-money-market-fears

 

However, bear in mind that it is in Nick Clegg's best interests to have a hung parliament as this gives the Lib Dems a real chance of power. Therefore, he wants a hung parliament and so perhaps this is not so balanced afterall. So, if I've been bought by Ashcroft, you've been had by Cleggy.

Edited 11 March, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[View From The Top]

A hung Parliament may cause jitters on the money markets but it may (God I hope so) bring some sensible consensus politics to this country.

[Johnny Bognor]

A hung Parliament may cause jitters on the money markets but it may (God I hope so) bring some sensible consensus politics to this country.

 

 

Has Ashcroft got to you too?????? :rolleyes:

 

How much did he pay you????

 

Just want to check that I haven't been done :smt044

[View From The Top]

Has Ashcroft got to you too?????? :rolleyes:

 

How much did he pay you????

 

Just want to check that I haven't been done :smt044

 

Sorry, you've lost me there.

[Causer]

Ashcrofts Tories v Mittal/Cohen/Lord Paul's Labour v Michael Brown the convicted fraudster's Lib Dems.

 

A debate on funding isn't in anyones interests!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[OldNick]

A hung Parliament may cause jitters on the money markets but it may (God I hope so) bring some sensible consensus politics to this country.

Consensus politics! Surely that is just a group of people fudging the issues. No strong action is likely to be taken in that case.

Let Labour win the election, they have made the bed so let them lay in it.

To win the election is a poisoned chalice. Whoever wins will become very unpopular very quickly.

[View From The Top]

Consensus politics! Surely that is just a group of people fudging the issues. No strong action is likely to be taken in that case.

Let Labour win the election, they have made the bed so let them lay in it.

To win the election is a poisoned chalice. Whoever wins will become very unpopular very quickly.

 

Or a group of people binning out dated ideology and actually working together for the good of the country.

[Johnny Bognor]

Sorry, you've lost me there.

 

I suggested earlier in the thread that the markets may not take a positive view on a hung parliament.

 

I got this response from Bungle

 

Looks like you have been bought by Ashcroft and are incapable of rational thought.

 

 

As you are of a different political persuasion and have intimated that you agree with my original statement, forgetting all notions of common sense and looking at it from Bungle's point of view, it would suggest that you too have been bought by Ashcroft.

 

If you have (as I have according to Bungle), I wanted to know how much you got paid.

 

HTH

[View From The Top]

I suggested earlier in the thread that the markets may not take a positive view on a hung parliament.

 

I got this response from Bungle

 

 

 

 

As you are of a different political persuasion and have intimated that you agree with my original statement, forgetting all notions of common sense and looking at it from Bungle's point of view, it would suggest that you too have been bought by Ashcroft.

 

If you have (as I have according to Bungle), I wanted to know how much you got paid.

 

HTH

 

Being a good leftie I settled for a bag of scratchings, pint of bitter and some offal for my whippet.

 

Bungle, I suggest, has no idea about money markets.

[Johnny Bognor]

Being a good leftie I settled for a bag of scratchings, pint of bitter and some offal for my whippet..

 

Being a really good leftie, you would have given your bag of scratchings away, had a pint bought for someone else and given your whippet to someone more deserving.......otherwise it's just me, me, me

 

 

Bungle, I suggest, has no idea about money markets.

 

I suppose he has a lot in common with Fraudon himself.

Edited 11 March, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[dune]

Over a year ago it was speculated that Brown would embark on a scorched earth policy to ensure he left as much destruction as possible for the Tories to sort out. This was was to increase the chances of the Socialists getting back in again. Given the way brown has maxed out on the credit card it seems reasonable to assume the speculation was right.

[buctootim]

Over a year ago it was speculated that Brown would embark on a scorched earth policy to ensure he left as much destruction as possible for the Tories to sort out. This was was to increase the chances of the Socialists getting back in again.

 

Wow direct contradiction of yourself in only two successive sentences - impressive.

[View From The Top]

Being a really good leftie, you would have given your bag of scratchings away, had a pint bought for someone else and given your whippet to someone more deserving.......otherwise it's just me, me, me

 

One could safely say I was partaking in a redistribution of wealth exercise.

Edited 11 March, 2010 by View From The Top

[dune]

Wow direct contradiction of yourself in only two successive sentences - impressive.

 

I think I touched a nerve in the car forum.