In message , Tony Polson
writes
I'm surprised that no-one has noticed the Conservatives' equally
unequivocal commitment about where the money for the high speed line(s)
would come from.

The Conservatives are absolutely committed to put not a single penny
more into the railway so, as I have already predicted, all the money
for the high speed line would come from swingeing cuts to Network
Rail's subsidy.

Perhaps, when (and if) the Tories get into office, they will find the
economy in such bad shape that we will get the swingeing cuts, but no
money for the high speed line(s).

That'll be the old 'it's worse than we ever imagined' excuse wheeled out
again then?
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 13:47:48 +0100, Steve Fitzgerald wrote


Perhaps, when (and if) the Tories get into office, they will find the
economy in such bad shape that we will get the swingeing cuts, but no
money for the high speed line(s).

That'll be the old 'it's worse than we ever imagined' excuse wheeled out
again then?

Which, given the way departing governments tend to behave, is probably not so
much of an excuse.

There was, some years ago, a proposal for there to be a 'shadowing' period
before an election during which each minister was shadowed by his - errr -
shadow, in order that the incoming government had some idea in advance of the
state of things. A suggested by-product of this was that it would encourage
outgoing ministers to behave more responsibly in the dying months of their
government.

This would, of course, require fixed election dates and fixed-term
governments.

On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Stimpy wrote:

On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 13:47:48 +0100, Steve Fitzgerald wrote

Perhaps, when (and if) the Tories get into office, they will find the
economy in such bad shape that we will get the swingeing cuts, but no
money for the high speed line(s).

That'll be the old 'it's worse than we ever imagined' excuse wheeled out
again then?

Which, given the way departing governments tend to behave, is probably not so
much of an excuse.

There was, some years ago, a proposal for there to be a 'shadowing' period
before an election during which each minister was shadowed by his - errr -
shadow, in order that the incoming government had some idea in advance of the
state of things. A suggested by-product of this was that it would encourage
outgoing ministers to behave more responsibly in the dying months of their
government.

This would, of course, require fixed election dates and fixed-term
governments.

It would also require you to know in advance who was going to win the
election.

Alternatively, you'd have a longer gap between election and handover than
the hours we do at present. I'm not sure that would be a good thing.

tom

--
resistance is fertile

On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 15:19:16 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote

There was, some years ago, a proposal for there to be a 'shadowing' period
before an election during which each minister was shadowed by his - errr -
shadow, in order that the incoming government had some idea in advance of
the
state of things. A suggested by-product of this was that it would encourage
outgoing ministers to behave more responsibly in the dying months of their
government.

This would, of course, require fixed election dates and fixed-term
governments.

It would also require you to know in advance who was going to win the
election.

Not at all... Either the incumbent party or the opposition will be forming
the government, both of whom would be represented during the shadow period.

Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 15:19:16 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote
There was, some years ago, a proposal for there to be a 'shadowing' period
before an election during which each minister was shadowed by his - errr -
shadow, in order that the incoming government had some idea in advance of
the
state of things. A suggested by-product of this was that it would encourage
outgoing ministers to behave more responsibly in the dying months of their
government.

This would, of course, require fixed election dates and fixed-term
governments.
It would also require you to know in advance who was going to win the
election.

Not at all... Either the incumbent party or the opposition will be forming
the government, both of whom would be represented during the shadow period.

Wrong. The next government is selected from the participants in the next
election, not from the current residents of Parliament. The former might
contain some or none of the latter.

Charles Ellson wrote:

Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 15:19:16 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote
There was, some years ago, a proposal for there to be a 'shadowing' period
before an election during which each minister was shadowed by his - errr -
shadow, in order that the incoming government had some idea in advance of
the
state of things. A suggested by-product of this was that it would encourage
outgoing ministers to behave more responsibly in the dying months of their
government.

This would, of course, require fixed election dates and fixed-term
governments.
It would also require you to know in advance who was going to win the
election.

Not at all... Either the incumbent party or the opposition will be forming
the government, both of whom would be represented during the shadow period.

Wrong. The next government is selected from the participants in the next
election, not from the current residents of Parliament. The former might
contain some or none of the latter.

....leaving aside the fact (this is a democracy, right?) that the PM can
pick whomsoever he/she likes, and ennoble them.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632926.html
(40 165 on a night van train at London Kings Cross, 1979)

On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 17:28:36 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 15:19:16 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote
There was, some years ago, a proposal for there to be a 'shadowing' period
before an election during which each minister was shadowed by his - errr -
shadow, in order that the incoming government had some idea in advance of
the
state of things. A suggested by-product of this was that it would
encourage
outgoing ministers to behave more responsibly in the dying months of their
government.

This would, of course, require fixed election dates and fixed-term
governments.
It would also require you to know in advance who was going to win the
election.

Not at all... Either the incumbent party or the opposition will be forming
the government, both of whom would be represented during the shadow period.

Wrong. The next government is selected from the participants in the next
election, not from the current residents of Parliament. The former might
contain some or none of the latter.

As a practical example, it would be a useful exercise for Alistair Darling to
be shadowed by the then current Conservative shadow chancellor.

If the then current Conservative shadow chancellor lost his seat in the
election, the information he had gleaned would still be of use to his
successor.

Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 17:28:36 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 15:19:16 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote
There was, some years ago, a proposal for there to be a 'shadowing' period
before an election during which each minister was shadowed by his - errr -
shadow, in order that the incoming government had some idea in advance of
the
state of things. A suggested by-product of this was that it would
encourage
outgoing ministers to behave more responsibly in the dying months of their
government.

This would, of course, require fixed election dates and fixed-term
governments.
It would also require you to know in advance who was going to win the
election.
Not at all... Either the incumbent party or the opposition will be forming
the government, both of whom would be represented during the shadow period.

Wrong. The next government is selected from the participants in the next
election, not from the current residents of Parliament. The former might
contain some or none of the latter.

As a practical example, it would be a useful exercise for Alistair Darling to
be shadowed by the then current Conservative shadow chancellor.

If the then current Conservative shadow chancellor lost his seat in the
election, the information he had gleaned would still be of use to his
successor.

You're assuming the (blue) Tories are the only alternative (there is
still time for both types of Tory to make massive blunders which stop
either winning the next election). You're also assuming that an outgoing
government really is going to tell everything to the "enemy".

On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 22:47:43 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 17:28:36 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 15:19:16 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote
There was, some years ago, a proposal for there to be a 'shadowing'
period
before an election during which each minister was shadowed by his -
errr -
shadow, in order that the incoming government had some idea in advance
of
the
state of things. A suggested by-product of this was that it would
encourage
outgoing ministers to behave more responsibly in the dying months of
their
government.

This would, of course, require fixed election dates and fixed-term
governments.
It would also require you to know in advance who was going to win the
election.
Not at all... Either the incumbent party or the opposition will be
forming
the government, both of whom would be represented during the shadow
period.

Wrong. The next government is selected from the participants in the next
election, not from the current residents of Parliament. The former might
contain some or none of the latter.

As a practical example, it would be a useful exercise for Alistair Darling
to
be shadowed by the then current Conservative shadow chancellor.

If the then current Conservative shadow chancellor lost his seat in the
election, the information he had gleaned would still be of use to his
successor.

You're assuming the (blue) Tories are the only alternative (there is
still time for both types of Tory to make massive blunders which stop
either winning the next election).

I'm not assuming anything - the Conservatives are (still) the official
opposition party.

Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 22:47:43 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 17:28:36 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 15:19:16 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote
There was, some years ago, a proposal for there to be a 'shadowing'
period
before an election during which each minister was shadowed by his -
errr -
shadow, in order that the incoming government had some idea in advance
of
the
state of things. A suggested by-product of this was that it would
encourage
outgoing ministers to behave more responsibly in the dying months of
their
government.

This would, of course, require fixed election dates and fixed-term
governments.
It would also require you to know in advance who was going to win the
election.
Not at all... Either the incumbent party or the opposition will be
forming
the government, both of whom would be represented during the shadow
period.

Wrong. The next government is selected from the participants in the next
election, not from the current residents of Parliament. The former might
contain some or none of the latter.
As a practical example, it would be a useful exercise for Alistair Darling
to
be shadowed by the then current Conservative shadow chancellor.

If the then current Conservative shadow chancellor lost his seat in the
election, the information he had gleaned would still be of use to his
successor.

You're assuming the (blue) Tories are the only alternative (there is
still time for both types of Tory to make massive blunders which stop
either winning the next election).

I'm not assuming anything - the Conservatives are (still) the official
opposition party.

But not with absolute certainty the only winners of the next election if
NuLab [TM] lose.