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?