On 29 Apr, 15:09, "Peter Masson" wrote:
Yeah, but there were things like in High Wycombe where pro-Blair militias
burned down the Conservative party offices

Well, someone burnt the station down, but I'm not aware of any proof that it
was pro-Blair militias.

See, that's only because ZaNu Liebour's political censorship of the
media has blinded you to the truth.

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

On 29 Apr, 14:58, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Michael Whitson wrote:

"John B" wrote:

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

(snip)

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.

So Mr.Band it appears that you are in favour of vote rigging? Perhaps
you would like this country to descend to the level of Zimbabwe?

TWO automatic Daily Mail Talking Point Bots!


Bonus!

Can we get a hat-trick? Not sure that Mr Johns qualifies, what says
the panel?

And how are we going to descend to the level of Zimbabwe, I mean, how
- in practice - is it actually going to work - are we going to do a
swap with Madagascar and get towed down there? I don't think Britain's
even twinned with Madagascar at the moment. And - to bring it back on
topic - how's things with the Channel Tunnel going to work out? Do we
get to keep it and thus get a tunnel linking sub-Saharan Britain to
Mozambique, or does Madagascar arrive in the North Sea with a link to
France in situ already? Maybe the French will insist that we divvy it
up in half between us - still, half a tunnel's better than nothing I
suppose. And who's going to have to pay for all the new maps of the
world to be produced - or is everyone going to be expected to just cut
and paste the two islands into their new respective positions?

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.

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

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

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.

"2000 Postal voting on demand introduced with pilots in 32 areas"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3578882.ece

Remind me which party formed the Government at the time?


A House of Commons briefing note lists a significant number of postal
vote fraud and suspected fraud cases, the majority of which involve
fraud or alleged fraud by Labour:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib...snpc-03667.pdf

In article ,
Mizter T wrote:

On 29 Apr, 14:58, Tom Anderson wrote:
TWO automatic Daily Mail Talking Point Bots!


Bonus!

Can we get a hat-trick?

Absolutely not: it would really affect house prices.

--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Mike Bristow wrote:

In article ,
Mizter T wrote:

On 29 Apr, 14:58, Tom Anderson wrote:
TWO automatic Daily Mail Talking Point Bots!

Bonus!

Can we get a hat-trick?

Absolutely not: it would really affect house prices.

Yeah, nice try, Bristow.

Surely Mr Boltar can step in here and help us out?

tom

--
Just add a little flange and phase in

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.
--
Chris Johns

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...

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