On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:31:38 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, John B wrote:

On 30 Apr, 18:48, Graeme Wall wrote:
Though your lack of response to my response speaks volumes.

Actually says I haven't a clue what you are talking about now, which response
to what response?

I think he means hsi point about "Labour introduced on-demand postal
voting, so it's all their fault, plus they do most of the cheating".

Now, given that the main focus of the Rowntree report is the lack of ID
verification for voting, which has been the case since we introduced
voting, the first criticism would seem a little misplaced.

Perhaps, but it is nonetheless true that labour introduced on-demand
postal voting. Inferring from that that it's a giant labour plot to stuff
ballot boxes across the nation seems a little tinfoil-hat, though.

And given that, should you actually read the linked report, it's clear
that councillors from all parties (including Labour, Conservatives,
Lib Dems, Respect, BNP and DUP) have been caught cheating, the second
criticism would seem to be utter nonsense.

Well, not quite. He said "most of the cheating" - the fact that all
parties do some cheating doesn't tell is whether one particular party does
most of it or not. Just like saying "all countries have dropped bombs on
another country at some point since 1945" doesn't tell you that there's
one in particular that's contributed most of them.

I don't recall any evidence for any labour dominance of the vote-rigging
market being presented, though. If there is any, i'd certainly be
interested to see it (again, if necessary!).

The report which is referred to looks like it needs some careful
extraction. There seems to be an element of repetition of some "usual
suspects" while other cases are lacking in detail of offenders.
Especially in local elections involving local factions, the intended
result might not be the gain by a particular candidate but the failure
of another with the winning party (distinct from any individuals)
being itself blameless. Somewhere in the dusty back-copies of Private
Eye ISTR there is more than one report of a candidate's hopes being
sabotaged by his/her own party "colleagues" managing to boost
opponents' ballot figures by fair means or foul.

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:49:43 +0100, James Farrar
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:30:26 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:48:01 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:06:37 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message l
Chris Johns wrote:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Graeme Wall wrote:

Wow, it's like having our very own automatic Daily Mail Talking
Point- bot.

[snip]

Neither of which statements are true.

I don't think the Daily Mail ever let something minor like the truth get
in the way.

Given you snipped the lie (oops I meant line, typo honest!) I was
referring to...

Though your lack of response to my response speaks volumes.

Actually says I haven't a clue what you are talking about now, which response
to what response?

I stated that the reference to "Labour's ballot rigging" by John
Rowland upthread was "because it is enabled by a measure brought in by
Labour and has predominantly been done by Labour".

You claimed: "Neither of which statements are true".

I then demonstrated in Message-ID:
that, in fact, both
statements are true.

And you had no comment. I wonder why.

Well you didn't actually demonstrate it and I didn't want to embarras you
further.

I think it's rather more embarrassing to claim that a measure
introduced in 2000 was not introduced by Labour.

Not all legislation is introduced by the rulers, some is introduced by
opposition members or in the House of Lords.

In article , Tom
Anderson writes
My decision about who to vote for is based on the track record of each
candidate and party - not what they say they'll do, but what they've
done in the past. Actions speak louder than words.

So, as the only Conservative record in London is to abolish any form of
co-ordinated government for the city, whereas Labour's record includes
zonal fares, traffic reduction, increased investment in public
transport, public space renewal, urban regeneration and the rest - it's
all a bit "what have the Romans ever done for us?", isn't it?

And I am not too chuffed at the prospect of the three most powerful
Conservatives in the country all having been in the same
restaurant-wrecking public school drinking club.

--
Steve

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:48:35 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:30:26 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:48:01 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:06:37 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message l
Chris Johns wrote:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Graeme Wall wrote:

Wow, it's like having our very own automatic Daily Mail Talking
Point- bot.

[snip]

Neither of which statements are true.

I don't think the Daily Mail ever let something minor like the truth get
in the way.

Given you snipped the lie (oops I meant line, typo honest!) I was
referring to...

Though your lack of response to my response speaks volumes.

Actually says I haven't a clue what you are talking about now, which response
to what response?

I stated that the reference to "Labour's ballot rigging" by John
Rowland upthread was "because it is enabled by a measure brought in by
Labour and has predominantly been done by Labour".

You claimed: "Neither of which statements are true".

I then demonstrated in Message-ID:
that, in fact, both
statements are true.

And you had no comment. I wonder why.

Well you didn't actually demonstrate it and I didn't want to embarras you
further.

I think it's rather more embarrassing to claim that a measure
introduced in 2000 was not introduced by Labour.

So why claim it?

I don't know; you were the one claiming it[*], so you tell me.
[*] As shown by the following exchange:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:52:27 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
James Farrar wrote:

Because it [vote-rigging] is enabled by a measure [on-demand postal voting]
brought in by Labour and has predominantly been done by Labour.

Neither of which statements are true.

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:49:43 +0100, James Farrar
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:30:26 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:48:01 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:06:37 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message l
Chris Johns wrote:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Graeme Wall wrote:

Wow, it's like having our very own automatic Daily Mail Talking
Point- bot.

[snip]

Neither of which statements are true.

I don't think the Daily Mail ever let something minor like the truth get
in the way.

Given you snipped the lie (oops I meant line, typo honest!) I was
referring to...

Though your lack of response to my response speaks volumes.

Actually says I haven't a clue what you are talking about now, which response
to what response?

I stated that the reference to "Labour's ballot rigging" by John
Rowland upthread was "because it is enabled by a measure brought in by
Labour and has predominantly been done by Labour".

You claimed: "Neither of which statements are true".

I then demonstrated in Message-ID:
that, in fact, both
statements are true.

And you had no comment. I wonder why.

Well you didn't actually demonstrate it and I didn't want to embarras you
further.

I think it's rather more embarrassing to claim that a measure
introduced in 2000 was not introduced by Labour.

Not all legislation is introduced by the rulers, some is introduced by
opposition members or in the House of Lords.

Legislation introduced in the Lords usually originates with the rulers, if
by that you mean the government, i think, but is stuff that's so
uncontroversial, or at least non-political, that it isn't thought to need
to be put through the wringers in the lower house. Or it's stuff that's
really complicated, and gets dealt with by their eminences to save the
hard-of-thinking in the lower house the headache!

tom

--
What were the skies like when you were young?

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Steve wrote:

In article , Tom Anderson
writes

My decision about who to vote for is based on the track record of each
candidate and party - not what they say they'll do, but what they've
done in the past. Actions speak louder than words.

So, as the only Conservative record in London is to abolish any form of
co-ordinated government for the city, whereas Labour's record includes
zonal fares, traffic reduction, increased investment in public
transport, public space renewal, urban regeneration and the rest - it's
all a bit "what have the Romans ever done for us?", isn't it?

You may very well think that; i couldn't possibly comment.

And I am not too chuffed at the prospect of the three most powerful
Conservatives in the country all having been in the same
restaurant-wrecking public school drinking club.

I'm not so bothered about that. It's more the nation-wrecking public
school politics club they're all in that i worry about.

tom

--
What were the skies like when you were young?

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Steve wrote:

And I am not too chuffed at the prospect of the three most powerful
Conservatives in the country all having been in the same
restaurant-wrecking public school drinking club.

I'm not so bothered about that. It's more the nation-wrecking public
school politics club they're all in that i worry about.

Head in hands

pause

pause

pause

pause

recovers ability to produce sentences

Do you truly believe the party that wants to wreck the nation is not the
Labour Party?

On Thu, 1 May 2008 00:25:03 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Steve wrote:

And I am not too chuffed at the prospect of the three most powerful
Conservatives in the country all having been in the same
restaurant-wrecking public school drinking club.

I'm not so bothered about that. It's more the nation-wrecking public
school politics club they're all in that i worry about.

Head in hands

pause

pause

pause

pause

recovers ability to produce sentences

Do you truly believe the party that wants to wreck the nation is not the
Labour Party?

Who said anything about "wanting" to ?

On Thu, 1 May 2008, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Steve wrote:

And I am not too chuffed at the prospect of the three most powerful
Conservatives in the country all having been in the same
restaurant-wrecking public school drinking club.

I'm not so bothered about that. It's more the nation-wrecking public
school politics club they're all in that i worry about.

Head in hands

pause

pause

pause

pause

recovers ability to produce sentences

Do you truly believe the party that wants to wreck the nation is not the
Labour Party?

Oh for christ's sake, read what i wrote, John.

Labour is a nation-wrecking *state* school politics club.

tom

--
What were the skies like when you were young?

On May 1, 12:53*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2008, John Rowland wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Steve wrote:

And I am not too chuffed at the prospect of the three most powerful
Conservatives in the country all having been in the same
restaurant-wrecking public school drinking club.

I'm not so bothered about that. It's more the nation-wrecking public
school politics club they're all in that i worry about.

Head in hands

pause

pause

pause

pause

recovers ability to produce sentences

Do you truly believe the party that wants to wreck the nation is not the
Labour Party?

Oh for christ's sake, read what i wrote, John.

Labour is a nation-wrecking *state* school politics club.

I thought you meant Parliament. Totally confused now.