Tom Anderson wrote in uk.transport.london on Tue, 27 May 2008 15:21:39
+0100 .li:

"Certified as free and fair by international observers" might be a bit
strong. Just going on what's in wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_chavez

It seems he's better than SLORC, but probably not a lot better, if any,
than Mugabe.

The wikipedia article is so full of cross-references and amendments
that whatever points the originators (pro and anti Chavez) were trying
to make, the foreground has gone underground due to the weight of the
background.

So, if you could elucidate, it might help?

Dave

David Cantrell wrote in uk.transport.london on Tue, 27 May 2008
14:11:31 +0100 :

Never mind *Sky* being a luxury item. A *television* is a luxury item.
Arguably even more so than a computer - at least a computer is useful
and can help the owner to, eg, study or get a job.

Indeed. And if you gave them baths, they'd only keep coal in them.

On Tue, 27 May 2008, Dave Hillam wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote in uk.transport.london on Tue, 27 May 2008 15:21:39
+0100 .li:

"Certified as free and fair by international observers" might be a bit
strong. Just going on what's in wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_chavez

It seems he's better than SLORC, but probably not a lot better, if any,
than Mugabe.

The wikipedia article is so full of cross-references and amendments
that whatever points the originators (pro and anti Chavez) were trying
to make, the foreground has gone underground due to the weight of the
background.

So, if you could elucidate, it might help?

On his election in 2000:

"General elections were held on July 30, 2000. Chavez's coalition garnered
two-thirds of seats in the National Assembly while Chavez was reelected
with 60% of the votes. The Carter Center monitored the election; their
report stated that, due to lack of transparency, Consejo Nacional
Electoral (CNE; "National Electoral Council") partiality, and political
pressure from the Chavez government that resulted in early elections, it
was unable to validate the official CNE results.[32] However, they
concluded that the presidential election legitimately expressed the will
of the people.[33]"

So, dodgy, but not totally dodgy. He's a demagogue, who is genuinely quite
popular, with undue influence over the electoral machinery, so similar to
Mugabe. Or Bush, for that matter.

In Mugabe's case, there's also organised violence against the opposition,
which i'm not aware of in Venezuela. He scores against Robbo on that
count.

The recall vote against him in 2004:

"The recall vote itself was held on August 15, 2004. A record number of
voters turned out to defeat the recall attempt with a 59% "no"
vote.[54][55] The election was overseen by the Carter Center and the
Organization of American States, and was certified by them as fair and
open.[56] European Union observers did not attend, saying too many
restrictions had been placed on their participation by the
government.[57]"

So probably not dodgy. There were some criticisms of that, but none
totally credible, that i can see.

Interestingly:

"President Chavez initiated a program to provide cheaper heating fuel for
low income families in several areas of the United States. The program was
expanded in September 2006 to include four of New York City's five
boroughs, earmarking 25 million gallons of fuel for low-income New York
residents at 40% off the wholesale market price. That quantity provides
sufficient fuel to heat 70,000 apartments, covering 200,000 New Yorkers,
for the entire winter. Chavez offered heating oil to poor, remote villages
in Alaska, though many reportedly refused the offer despite economic
hardship.[83]"

tom

--
Any problem in computer science can be solved with another layer of
indirection. -- David Wheeler

On Tue, 27 May 2008 16:39:10 +0100, Dave Hillam
] wrote:

Indeed. And if you gave them baths, they'd only keep coal in them.

Don't be silly. If you are short on money, you do not *need*
satellite television. In such a situation, you stop buying things you
do not *need*.

The fact that people can't get their heads around that basic concept
is one major factor in the credit crunch we are experiencing at the
moment.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:32:05 +0100, James Farrar wrote:

doubling bus and tram fares for the poor is apparently perfectly OK
From the BBC article cited in the first post of the thread:
"The mayor of London said half-price bus and tram fares for 250,000
Londoners on income support, which were also funded by the deal, would
still be honoured."

The BBC have got that wrong. (Or perhaps just not been thorough enough
in a their bank holiday reading of a deliberately unclear press
release.)

Boris is only honouring the half-price deal until the end of its
original duration, i.e. the first year, which ends this August (and
would undoubtedly have been renewed under the previous Mayor).

Until then you can still apply for the six-month half-price cards, but
as and when each card expires after August, its owner will be in for a
nasty shock.

Paul

In message
, at
08:17:07 on Tue, 27 May 2008, MIG
remarked:
The comment might as well have been that cinemas shouldn't be
involved in the benefits system when they give concessions to
pensioners or unemployed.

Those cinemas are mainly operating in exactly the same way as railways -
selling people a half price product to get bums on seats, rather than
have the seat empty.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 27 May 2008 20:47:54 +0100, Paul wrote:

doubling bus and tram fares for the poor is apparently perfectly OK
From the BBC article cited in the first post of the thread:
"The mayor of London said half-price bus and tram fares for 250,000
Londoners on income support, which were also funded by the deal, would
still be honoured."

The BBC have got that wrong. (Or perhaps just not been thorough enough
in a their bank holiday reading of a deliberately unclear press
release.)

Boris is only honouring the half-price deal until the end of its
original duration, i.e. the first year, which ends this August (and
would undoubtedly have been renewed under the previous Mayor).

AIUI, even that's not quite right. The thing whose original duration
was until August was the oil deal, not the half-price fares.

Aardvark wrote:
On 26 May, 12:50, "John Rowland"
wrote:


Good old Southwark (Labour) Council.- Hide quoted text -

Er...Lib Dem/Tory coaliton actually...

I appear to be a little out of date... it was Labour controlled from its
creation in the 1960s until 1998, and Labour was the largest party until
2002. My experience of it being the most incompetent borough in London
(despite strong competion from Hackney and Haringey) dates from that period.
I have no personal experience of how competent it is now, but I'm guessing
that the comments on the Youtube page about the Heygate Estate are more
recent than the Labour control period.