On Apr 26, 1:26 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Mizter T wrote:

[...] Ken Livingstone's pet projects [...] for the benefit of Londoners.

LOL.

You think he doesn't want their votes?

TimB wrote:
On Apr 26, 1:26 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Mizter T wrote:

[...] Ken Livingstone's pet projects [...] for the benefit of
Londoners.

LOL.

You think he doesn't want their votes?

Thanks to Labour's ballot-rigging, he hardly needs anyone's votes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3828322.ece

On Apr 29, 10:17 am, "John Rowland"
wrote:
[...] Ken Livingstone's pet projects [...] for the benefit of
Londoners.

LOL.

You think he doesn't want their votes?

Thanks to Labour's ballot-rigging, he hardly needs anyone's votes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3828322.ece

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

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On 29 Apr, 11:07, John B wrote:
On Apr 29, 10:17 am, "John Rowland"

wrote:
[...] Ken Livingstone's pet projects [...] for the benefit of
Londoners.

LOL.

You think he doesn't want their votes?

Thanks to Labour's ballot-rigging, he hardly needs anyone's votes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3828322.ece

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


I wonder why he calls it Labour's ballot rigging?

Postal voting is inappropriate in a number of ways, including
fraudulent registration, dodgy canvassers "helping" vulnerable voters
etc, but also because people vote long before they've heard the case
for each candidate, which benefits any large party with established
machinery and support.

But I don't recall the publicised fraud cases relating only to one
party.

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, MIG wrote:

Postal voting is inappropriate in a number of ways, including fraudulent
registration, dodgy canvassers "helping" vulnerable voters etc,

These are valid criticisms, as is John B's point about giving too much
influence to some heads of households.

but also because people vote long before they've heard the case for each
candidate, which benefits any large party with established machinery and
support.

This is absurd. Are you (and John B) seriously saying that paying
attention to political campaigns is an important or useful step in
deciding who to vote for? A political campaign isn't information, it's
advertising. It's where politicians lie to you in order to make you vote
for them (as opposed to everything else politicians say, which is, er,
where they lie to you in order to make you vote for them). We'd have a
better democracy if they were banned altogether!

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.

tom

--
catch my hand and come with me - close your eyes and dream

On 29 Apr, 15:08, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, MIG wrote:
Postal voting is inappropriate in a number of ways, including fraudulent
registration, dodgy canvassers "helping" vulnerable voters etc,

These are valid criticisms, as is John B's point about giving too much
influence to some heads of households.

but also because people vote long before they've heard the case for each
candidate, which benefits any large party with established machinery and
support.

This is absurd. Are you (and John B) seriously saying that paying
attention to political campaigns is an important or useful step in
deciding who to vote for?

For the big parties it isn't, but for smaller parties (good or bad),
often subjected to news blackouts, going round the streets in the
runup to voting is often the only way that they can let people know
that they exist.

If everyone has already given their postal vote to a major party
they'd already heard of, small parties are disproportionately
disadvantaged.

A political campaign isn't information, it's
advertising. It's where politicians lie to you in order to make you vote
for them (as opposed to everything else politicians say, which is, er,
where they lie to you in order to make you vote for them). We'd have a
better democracy if they were banned altogether!

I don't disagree.


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.

But only the ones that get reported.

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, 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?

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:33:41 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On 29 Apr, 11:07, John B wrote:
On Apr 29, 10:17 am, "John Rowland"

wrote:
[...] Ken Livingstone's pet projects [...] for the benefit of
Londoners.

LOL.

You think he doesn't want their votes?

Thanks to Labour's ballot-rigging, he hardly needs anyone's votes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3828322.ece

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


I wonder why he calls it Labour's ballot rigging?

Because it is enabled by a measure brought in by Labour and has
predominantly been done by Labour.

In message
James Farrar wrote:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:33:41 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On 29 Apr, 11:07, John B wrote:
On Apr 29, 10:17 am, "John Rowland"

wrote:
[...] Ken Livingstone's pet projects [...] for the benefit of
Londoners.

LOL.

You think he doesn't want their votes?

Thanks to Labour's ballot-rigging, he hardly needs anyone's votes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3828322.ece

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


I wonder why he calls it Labour's ballot rigging?

Because it is enabled by a measure brought in by Labour and has
predominantly been done by Labour.

Neither of which statements are true.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html