Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#392
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:54:23 +0000
Sam Wilson wrote: In article , d wrote: My wife has a birth certificate from the Ministry of Ag and Fish, Malta. Ministry of Agriculture? Was she born in a barn? No, a local hospital. The rest of the world is a foreign country: they do things differently there. Congratulations on not spotting an obvious joke. I'll put in a smiley next time just for you. It seems you would deny her voting rights in the UK. She has no such rights anywhere else. Its all hypothetical anyway so who cares. -- Spud |
#393
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 25/11/2016 10:40, d wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:54:23 +0000 Sam Wilson wrote: In article , d wrote: My wife has a birth certificate from the Ministry of Ag and Fish, Malta. Ministry of Agriculture? Was she born in a barn? No, a local hospital. The rest of the world is a foreign country: they do things differently there. Congratulations on not spotting an obvious joke. I'll put in a smiley next time just for you. It seems you would deny her voting rights in the UK. She has no such rights anywhere else. Its all hypothetical anyway so who cares. You apparently do. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
#394
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , d wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:54:23 +0000 Sam Wilson wrote: In article , d wrote: My wife has a birth certificate from the Ministry of Ag and Fish, Malta. Ministry of Agriculture? Was she born in a barn? No, a local hospital. The rest of the world is a foreign country: they do things differently there. Congratulations on not spotting an obvious joke. I'll put in a smiley next time just for you. Thank you. I hadn't spotted the obviously ironic tenor of the rest of your contributions, either. It seems you would deny her voting rights in the UK. She has no such rights anywhere else. Its all hypothetical anyway so who cares. I thought perhaps you did, but perhaps I should learn to ignore what you write. Sam -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. |
#395
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote: In message -septe mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner remarked: But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3% of the vote last time) "Slim to none" is a more realistic description. However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later. Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a chance of winning the seat back. Well, I was wrong. The LD won, and Wolmar lost his deposit. He obviously had no chance of winning, but 1515 votes (4%) was a derisory result. He should stick to writing railway books and articles. |
#396
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Recliner" wrote in message ... Recliner wrote: Roland Perry wrote: In message -septe mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner remarked: But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3% of the vote last time) "Slim to none" is a more realistic description. However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later. Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a chance of winning the seat back. Well, I was wrong. The LD won, and Wolmar lost his deposit. He obviously had no chance of winning, but 1515 votes (4%) was a derisory result. He should stick to writing railway books and articles. I think that's a tad unfair I doubt that the vote was only 1500 *because* Wolmar was the candidate. Even if some "popular" (locally at least) Labourite was standing it would have been the same result for them. And if Wolmar wants a crack at a winnable seat he has to serve time running the losing ones first - Even Maggie had to do that tim |
#397
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 02:26:12 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: Recliner wrote: Roland Perry wrote: In message -septe mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner remarked: But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3% of the vote last time) "Slim to none" is a more realistic description. However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later. Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a chance of winning the seat back. Well, I was wrong. The LD won, and Wolmar lost his deposit. He obviously had no chance of winning, but 1515 votes (4%) was a derisory result. He should stick to writing railway books and articles. Zac lost by 4%. Will be interesting to see if any Remoaners start a grassroots campaign on Twitter to call for a re-run "because its too close" and "what about the 45%"? I mean they will won't they because they believe in democracy regardless of the result, not because they're a bunch of mealy mouthed stinking hypcrites who only like democracy when they get their own way and are utterly full of it? -- Spud |
#398
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#399
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 02 Dec 2016 11:59:07 +0000
Optimist wrote: On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 11:27:55 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: Zac lost by 4%. Will be interesting to see if any Remoaners start a grassroots campaign on Twitter to call for a re-run "because its too close" and "what about the 45%"? I mean they will won't they because they believe in democracy regardless of the result, not because they're a bunch of mealy mouthed stinking hypcrites who only like democracy when they get their own way and are utterly full of it? Obviously, those who voted Lib Dem were lied to so the by-election must be rerun G Well given most lib dem manifestos are a combination of wishful thinking, half truths and outright lies thats exactly the case ![]() -- Spud |
#400
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 13:42:28 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2016 11:59:07 +0000 Optimist wrote: On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 11:27:55 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: Zac lost by 4%. Will be interesting to see if any Remoaners start a grassroots campaign on Twitter to call for a re-run "because its too close" and "what about the 45%"? I mean they will won't they because they believe in democracy regardless of the result, not because they're a bunch of mealy mouthed stinking hypcrites who only like democracy when they get their own way and are utterly full of it? Obviously, those who voted Lib Dem were lied to so the by-election must be rerun G Well given most lib dem manifestos are a combination of wishful thinking, half truths and outright lies thats exactly the case ![]() Isn't "LibDem" surplus in that allegation ? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bye Bye Wolmar | London Transport | |||
"The Subterranean Railway" - Wolmar | London Transport |