On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 07:54:10PM -0500, wrote:
In article ,
(Charles Ellson) wrote:
Devolution (including the London Assembly & Mayor)
That isn't devolution, that is a jumped-up county council.
A bit more than that. It also controls a transport system carrying half the
nation's passengers.

That's pretty much *all* it is. The mayor has no significant powers
over anything else that people care about. And I'm not sure what powers
the assembly has at all.

--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic

I caught myself pulling grey hairs out of my beard.
I'm definitely not going grey, but I am going vain.

In article ,
(David Cantrell) wrote:

On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 07:54:10PM -0500,
wrote:
In article ,
(Charles Ellson) wrote:
Devolution (including the London Assembly & Mayor)
That isn't devolution, that is a jumped-up county council.
A bit more than that. It also controls a transport system carrying
half the nation's passengers.

That's pretty much *all* it is. The mayor has no significant powers
over anything else that people care about. And I'm not sure what powers
the assembly has at all.

The mayor has rather more planning powers than any county council. The
assembly is purely a scrutiny body. A bit like parliament.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In uk.railway Martin Edwards twisted the electrons to say:
On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote:
In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say:
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.
Quick! Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?
Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?

AFAIK most of them couldn't care less what other consenting adults get up
to in the spare time? This libertarian certainly doesn't care if two, or
more, consenting adults want to get married ... Unless they're
expressing a desire to either get married, or not get married as the case
may be, *to me* I really don't see it as being any of my business!
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Bruce wrote:

... just like David Cameron who pretends he had nothing to do with the
last Tory government, in spite of his role as Special Adviser to the
then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont. Pictures from Black
Wednesday (16.9.92) when the pound was forced out of the Exchange Rate
Mechanism show Lamont and Cameron strutting together.

So on the basis of your argument, David Cameron must also be setting
himself (and the country) up for a great big fall. ;-)

Cameron was in the positio of giving political advice. From the way Labour
made such a fuss about it, you'd think Cameron had personally been running
the UK's economic policy, taking all the decisions himself. This has been
roundly denied by both Norman Lamont and John Major.

However the Labour attacks may say something about how SpAds operated under
their own government, and in turn says a lot about the mess they made.
--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

In article ,
77002 wrote:
On Jul 4, 12:27*pm, Nick Leverton wrote:
In article ,





77002 wrote:
On Jul 4, 9:51*am, bob wrote:
On Jul 4, 7:42*am, Martin Edwards wrote:

On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote:

In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say:
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick! *Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?

Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might
be more popular amongst the political right?

There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage. *One
would expect that to be the norm.

I don't see any problem with having that as the only criterion for two
or more people to be joined in union.

One would like to think that the man and woman involved had a deep
conviction that they are right for each other. Although I agree it is
entirely, and only, their business. That is assuming they are over
the age of consent.

Including, of course, the man and the other man ...

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

On Jul 4, 5:51*pm, Nick Leverton wrote:
In article ,





77002 wrote:
On Jul 4, 12:27*pm, Nick Leverton wrote:
In article ,

77002 wrote:
On Jul 4, 9:51*am, bob wrote:
On Jul 4, 7:42*am, Martin Edwards wrote:

On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote:

In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say:
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick! *Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?

Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might
be more popular amongst the political right?

There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage. *One
would expect that to be the norm.

I don't see any problem with having that as the only criterion for two
or more people to be joined in union.

One would like to think that the man and woman involved had a deep
conviction that they are right for each other. *Although I agree it is
entirely, and only, their business. *That is assuming they are over
the age of consent.

Including, of course, the man and the other man ...

If you have any knowledge of the English language, you will know that
cannot be a marriage. A circle can never be a square.

"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote:
Bruce wrote:
... just like David Cameron who pretends he had nothing to do with the
last Tory government, in spite of his role as Special Adviser to the
then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont. Pictures from Black
Wednesday (16.9.92) when the pound was forced out of the Exchange Rate
Mechanism show Lamont and Cameron strutting together.

So on the basis of your argument, David Cameron must also be setting
himself (and the country) up for a great big fall. ;-)

Cameron was in the positio of giving political advice. From the way Labour
made such a fuss about it, you'd think Cameron had personally been running
the UK's economic policy, taking all the decisions himself. This has been
roundly denied by both Norman Lamont and John Major.


The job of a Special Adviser is to give POLICY advice to a Secretary
of State and/or Minister(s).

I don't think Labour has ever accused Cameron of running the UK's
economic policy at that time. But Cameron cannot deny knowledge of
what was going on, and if he wasn't giving policy advice, he wasn't
doing the job he was being paid for.

On 2012-07-04, e27002 wrote:
If you have any knowledge of the English language, you will know that
cannot be a marriage. A circle can never be a square.

So if I disagree with you, I must therefore have no knowledge of the
English language (which was not the subject of discussion). So not an
honest or a defensible argument then, are you happy to use it?

And no, a circle is not a square, but both are geometric figures formed
by enclosing part of the plane with an unbroken line. Both are shapes
that might be used in, say, the design of a steam locomotive.

Dictionary definitions are not a valid basis for arguing about concepts.

And we do not really want to know about your world view, beliefs, and
opinions, much less have you expect that we should agree with them.

E.
--
ms fnd in a lbry

On Jul 4, 7:55*pm, Eric wrote:
On 2012-07-04, e27002 wrote:

If you have any knowledge of the English language, you will know that
cannot be a marriage. *A circle can never be a square.

So if I disagree with you, I must therefore have no knowledge of the
English language (which was not the subject of discussion). So not an
honest or a defensible argument then, are you happy to use it?

And no, a circle is not a square, but both are geometric figures formed
by enclosing part of the plane with an unbroken line. Both are shapes
that might be used in, say, the design of a steam locomotive.

Dictionary definitions are not a valid basis for arguing about concepts.

And we do not really want to know about your world view, beliefs, and
opinions, much less have you expect that we should agree with them.

Sentiment mutual. Take your left field mishigas elsewhere.

On 02/07/2012 07:33, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 01/07/2012 17:13, e27002 wrote:
On Jul 1, 10:11 am, Alex wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 09:44:19 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
Blair and Prescott promised lots of things last time around, and failed
to deliver. Why would Labour act differently next time (assuming they
ever get a next time).

Given that it's impossible to discern any difference between the
parties,
I doubt that they would.

You hit that one on the head.

The article described something less than complete re-nationalisation
anyway, so there'd still be plenty trough available for their mates.



While this may be true, you have to believe that people can change. The
composition of the PLP has changed and will change even more if they win.


But will it be for the better?

--
Moving things in still pictures