-[I]- Is anyone still here?

[Paul .Jamison]

This is worrying.

Paul

[Nigel Stapley]

On 17/05/2017 05:36, Paul .Jamison wrote:
> This is worrying.
>
> Paul
>
Nah. Trump and May are 'worrying'. This is just...troubling.

--
Regards

Nigel Stapley

www.thejudge.me.uk

<reply-to will bounce>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[steveski]

On Tue, 16 May 2017 21:36:24 -0700, Paul .Jamison wrote:

> This is worrying.

Yes, but nowt's 'appenin'.

--
Steveski

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 05:36:26 UTC+1, Paul .Jamison wrote:
> This is worrying.
>

> Paul

Shh! They'll hear us!

[Lewis]

In message <TpWdnUjuStB7RIbE...@brightview.co.uk> Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
> On 17/05/2017 05:36, Paul .Jamison wrote:
>> This is worrying.
>>
>> Paul
>>
> Nah. Trump and May are 'worrying'. This is just...troubling.

Too many people fled to Farcebook.


--
"Reality continues to ruin my life."

[Paul .Jamison]

*sigh* Yeah, Poofbook seems to have turned a lot of message boards and groups into wastelands.

[larry]

Ain't nobody here but us chickens.


--
After investigation, believe that which you have yourselves
tested and found reasonable, and which is for your good
and that of others.
Gautama.

[real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk]

17 May 2017 at 18:59, Paul .Jamison wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

(Hopefully) many people will avoid FleeceBook and their bossiness model of
offering up vulnerable / weak people to (probably) even more vulnerable / weak
people, by playing on their vulnerabilities / weaknesses (I can explain but
guess if your still here you know what I mean) don´t get me started

[real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk]

17 May 2017 at 18:59, Paul .Jamison wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Sat, 20 May 2017 00:53:53 +0100, larry <ljm...@wightman.ca> wrote:

> On 2017-05-17, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 05:36:26 UTC+1, Paul .Jamison wrote:
>>> This is worrying.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>> Shh! They'll hear us!
>
> Ain't nobody here but us chickens.
>
>

Nah, it's all turtles these days.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[larry]

Yes. And all the way down, too.

[larry]

> guess if your still here you know what I mean) don?t get me started
>
>

M'lady dropped her FB account first (proof once again that
she de smarta one.)

[p. pinto]

- hi; yr hmbl srppnt.'s hardly ever "here" now; fb expands to take up
to (most of the available time in the day left after 45catting and 45-
wielding) (and 555 bussing - non- shakespearean variety - to anyplace
from milnthorpe (& back))... - and lj's not _quite_ dead (yet)...

- but i do look in from time-to-time; i'm *beginning* to get a bit
fitter and similar stuff (having had a month's course of being zapped
daily in a ginormous, open-sided, ultra-high power microwave ovenoid
at preston's robespierre clinic°... told by a locum a month or two
back, "of course it's taken you a year or so to feel like you're
recovering; just because we didn't cut you open, doesn't mean you
didn't receive about the same trauma from the procedure: you should
have been told to expect to take eighteen months to two years to
recover..." (which, to be fair, may've been in the half a dozen plus
booklets, eight leaflets, and three books recommended further reading).

- but, i amn't dead *_yet_*.

- how're afpeople still around - even, lurking?

- love, ppint.

° - managed to convince several of the staff to so refer to the place
--
'tis due to ppinqueans that set light
to nelson's hat
it glows at night

[Richard Bos]

larry <ljm...@wightman.ca> wrote:

> On 2017-05-17, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 05:36:26 UTC+1, Paul .Jamison wrote:
> >> This is worrying.
> >>
> >> Paul
> >
> > Shh! They'll hear us!
>
> Ain't nobody here but us chickens.

Hollywood Chickens?

Richard

[larry]

On 2017-05-21, p. pinto <ppin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> - hi; yr hmbl srppnt.'s hardly ever "here" now; fb expands to take up
> to (most of the available time in the day left after 45catting and 45-
> wielding) (and 555 bussing - non- shakespearean variety - to anyplace
> from milnthorpe (& back))... - and lj's not _quite_ dead (yet)...
>
> - but i do look in from time-to-time; i'm *beginning* to get a bit
> fitter and similar stuff (having had a month's course of being zapped
> daily in a ginormous, open-sided, ultra-high power microwave ovenoid

> at preston's robespierre clinic??... told by a locum a month or two

> back, "of course it's taken you a year or so to feel like you're
> recovering; just because we didn't cut you open, doesn't mean you
> didn't receive about the same trauma from the procedure: you should
> have been told to expect to take eighteen months to two years to
> recover..." (which, to be fair, may've been in the half a dozen plus
> booklets, eight leaflets, and three books recommended further reading).
>
> - but, i amn't dead *_yet_*.
>
> - how're afpeople still around - even, lurking?
>
> - love, ppint.
>

> ?? - managed to convince several of the staff to so refer to the place

My sister said she would have been less panicked if she
had watched the instructional DVD from the oncologist first.

So glad you said hello.
Be Well!!

[p. pinto]

- hi; your sister's oncologist provided an oncology dvd° ?

- now _there's_ posh for you! (- i trust she is well, or getting
so - ?)

- yr hmbl srppnt. did get patient transport(ation) down to preston
and back, with a two-hour pick-up window; on a couple of occasions,
the commercial taxi°°- driver failed to find me, and didn't bother
to phone me and ask - and listen to! - directions, because he knew
he was in the right place (which he wasn't), and went away without
yr hmbl srppnt. . . on one of these, the robespierre's reception
insisted i wait to be picked up "soon" - for five hours - in winter
with no heating...

- the robespierre's a private clinic of some variety, within the
nhs hospital grounds, so private does *not* mean "better", thank-
you kindly, jeremy "berkshire" hunt, health minist^W minion of
our dearly-beloathed, self-proclaimédly "caring, sharing" deranged
dalek of a prime monster and would-be empress or dictator. . .

- </rant>

- love, ppint.

° - oncology *ought* to be the systematic study & explanation of uncles

°° - 'twere about half+half volunteer service/ambulance & contract taxi
--
decadence, n; the finest flowering of civilization

--

[larry]

On 2017-05-22, p. pinto <ppin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> - hi; your sister's oncologist provided an oncology dvd?? ?

>
> - now _there's_ posh for you! (- i trust she is well, or getting
> so - ?)

Unfortunately, no. She had one of those brain tumors that by
the time it had shown symptoms, was past being treatable. The
oncologist tried two sessions of radiation and chemo without
progress and then my sister refused further treatment.

>
> - yr hmbl srppnt. did get patient transport(ation) down to preston
> and back, with a two-hour pick-up window; on a couple of occasions,

> the commercial taxi????- driver failed to find me, and didn't bother

> to phone me and ask - and listen to! - directions, because he knew
> he was in the right place (which he wasn't), and went away without
> yr hmbl srppnt. . . on one of these, the robespierre's reception
> insisted i wait to be picked up "soon" - for five hours - in winter
> with no heating...
>

We volunteer drive. Sometimes to court, sometimes to doctor appointments,
parent-child sessions, dialysis or cancer treatments, day care for
the elderly, interviews with the welfare authorities, weekly
checkins at the police station, taking children to visit their
other parent for the weekend. We have never failed to get our
client to/from whatever their task was. *and we have two shoes*

> - the robespierre's a private clinic of some variety, within the
> nhs hospital grounds, so private does *not* mean "better", thank-
> you kindly, jeremy "berkshire" hunt, health minist^W minion of

> our dearly-beloathed, self-proclaim??dly "caring, sharing" deranged

> dalek of a prime monster and would-be empress or dictator. . .
>
> - </rant>
>

Yea. The 'private helthcare clinic' scam is something we are fighting
here with all our 'common, single payer/public care' might and somehow
are winning.
> - love, ppint.

Love from m'lady and i, both.
>
> ?? - oncology *ought* to be the systematic study & explanation of uncles
>
> ???? - 'twere about half+half volunteer service/ambulance & contract taxi

> --
> decadence, n; the finest flowering of civilization
>

America: the only place which passed from barbarism to decadence without
an intervening period of civilization.

[Richard Bos]

real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> 17 May 2017 at 18:59, Paul .Jamison wrote:
> >On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 8:04:45 PM UTC-5, Lewis wrote:

> >> In message <TpWdnUjuStB7RIbE...@brightview.co.uk> Nigel St=

> >> > On 17/05/2017 05:36, Paul .Jamison wrote:
> >
> >> >> This is worrying.

> >> > Nah. Trump and May are 'worrying'. This is just...troubling.

May doesn't worry me at all. But then, I'm not a Limey.

> >> Too many people fled to Farcebook.

> >*sigh* Yeah, Poofbook seems to have turned a lot of message boards and g=
> roups into wastelands.
>
> (Hopefully) many people will avoid FleeceBook and their bossiness model of=
>
> offering up vulnerable / weak people to (probably) even more vulnerable / =
> weak
> people, by playing on their vulnerabilities / weaknesses (I can explain bu=
> t
> guess if your still here you know what I mean) don=B4t get me started

Fat chance. The opportunity to [Like] someone you wouldn't have deigned
to [Poke] back when you knew each other in high school is more important
than keeping your children's lives private. So is your highly important
and completely objective newsfeed from JennyMcCarthy.Com[1] and the
HuffPost.

By the way, QuotedIllegible is another nail in Usenet's coffin.

Richard

[1] On whose head, all the curses of all religions _including_ atheism

[Chris Zakes]

<shrug> In *my* observation, newsgroups were drying up well before
Facebook came on the scene. If anything, that hastened the end, but
didn't cause it.

-Chris Zakes
Texas

--

GNU Terry Pratchett
Mind how you go.

[real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk]

24 May 2017 at 21:11, Richard Bos wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> (Hopefully) many people will avoid FleeceBook and their bossiness model of

>> offering up vulnerable / weak people to (probably) even more vulnerable /

>> weak people, by playing on their vulnerabilities / weaknesses (I can explain but
>> guess if your still here you know what I mean) don't get me started

>Fat chance. The opportunity to [Like] someone you wouldn't have deigned
>to [Poke] back when you knew each other in high school is more important
>than keeping your children's lives private.

I have no idea about either but will defer to your knowledge, it seems counter
intuitive, when I was in education it "should" have been the other way around
(Not [Poke] someone you don´t [Like]) though maybe hormones were involved ;->)

[real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk]

24 May 2017 at 21:11, Richard Bos wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

>> (Hopefully) many people will avoid FleeceBook and their bossiness model of

>> offering up vulnerable / weak people to (probably) even more vulnerable /

>> weak people, by playing on their vulnerabilities / weaknesses (I can explain but
>> guess if your still here you know what I mean) don't get me started

>Fat chance. The opportunity to [Like] someone you wouldn't have deigned
>to [Poke] back when you knew each other in high school is more important
>than keeping your children's lives private.

[Lesley Weston]

Yes, indeed! There's been a long, slow decline for many years, and the
current desert [1] is just the last phase :-(

I've looked in for the first time in quite a while to see what afp had
to say about the election, but nothing doing so far. I guess it's going
to take a while for the shock to mellow into normal outrage.

[1] Currant dessert would be much nicer [2].

[2] I do miss feetnotes on FB. You can put them in, but it's clumsy and
people don't know to look for them.

Lesley.

--
My real e-mail is leswes att shaw dott ca

[real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk]

09 June 2017 at 16:43, Lesley Weston wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>I've looked in for the first time in quite a while to see what afp had
>to say about the election, but nothing doing so far. I guess it's going
>to take a while for the shock to mellow into normal outrage.

Why would we say much about "it"?
Whoever voted,
They have spoken their minds about whatever issue was been voted on
The losers will have bemoaned the voting system or the counting

Hope that covers most eventualities and will be current whenever this is read
(even from the archives)

[larry]

On 2017-06-09, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 05-28-17 7:02 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:59:12 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
>> laser caused "Paul .Jamison" <paul...@yahoo.com> to write:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 8:04:45 PM UTC-5, Lewis wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <TpWdnUjuStB7RIbE...@brightview.co.uk> Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On 17/05/2017 05:36, Paul .Jamison wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> This is worrying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nah. Trump and May are 'worrying'. This is just...troubling.
>>>>
>>>> Too many people fled to Farcebook.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "Reality continues to ruin my life."
>>>
>>> *sigh* Yeah, Poofbook seems to have turned a lot of message boards and groups into wastelands.
>>
>>
>> <shrug> In *my* observation, newsgroups were drying up well before
>> Facebook came on the scene. If anything, that hastened the end, but
>> didn't cause it.
>>
> Yes, indeed! There's been a long, slow decline for many years, and the
> current desert [1] is just the last phase :-(
>
> I've looked in for the first time in quite a while to see what afp had
> to say about the election, but nothing doing so far. I guess it's going
> to take a while for the shock to mellow into normal outrage.

Which particular election, there have been so many?
US UK BC etc.

While the elected president is't the biggest Know-Nothing to
hold the post, he is destined to disappoint just about all comers.
Both the ladies are hanging onto power by the least of mandates, I see.

mers

>
> [1] Currant dessert would be much nicer [2].
>
> [2] I do miss feetnotes on FB. You can put them in, but it's clumsy and
> people don't know to look for them.
>
> Lesley.
>


--

[Lesley Weston]

I meant the UK election, which had just happened when I posted that, but
any of them would do. Also France and the Netherlands, though in each of
those those countries sanity prevailed and a properly-elected Government
is carrying on with running the country.

>
> While the elected president is't the biggest Know-Nothing to
> hold the post, he is destined to disappoint just about all comers.
> Both the ladies are hanging onto power by the least of mandates, I see.

Them ain't no ladies...

Clark will be gone on the 22nd, which is the longest she can delay the
Throne Speech and the consequent No Confidence vote. I had hoped she
would show more class by gracefully accepting reality and conceding,
though I don't really know why I thought she would; she's a politician
after all, and a right-wing one at that. But we still won't have the NDP
Government that we voted for; instead we'll have the Green Government of
just three MLAs that strategic voting brought down on us.

May will (hopefully) not last much longer either. Her deal with the
devil seems to be unpopular with everybody on all sides. And this
horrible fire combined with the two terrorist attacks, all of them
personally her fault, won't help. Without strategic voting in that case
too, Jeremy Corbyn would be appointing his Cabinet right about now.

And we can hope that Trump will be gone soon too. They seem to be taking
an unconscionably long time about impeaching him; I guess they want to
make quite sure their case is watertight before they proceed. I don't
think strategic voting is responsible for that particular disaster, though.

[Robert Carnegie]

"They" would be his own party, so I don't think
they're in a hurry to impeach their President.
Some of them are talking about pre-emptively
removing the Special Prosecutor.

I didn't bring up the political situation
(UK for me) because it's mostly off-topic
and liable to be contentious amongst friends.

Citizens of Ankh-Morpork are ruled constitutionally
by Lord Vetinari - he is in excellent health -
and by committee; if you offend Vetinari, he puts
you in a committee, and you may even be grateful.
The population treat great disasters as free public
entertainment, and they appreciate democracy
particularly... when it happens somewhere else.

I suppose we can do that too?

[larry]

I can't (actually I can, but despair,) that May would ally herself with
The scots-irish Orange DUP.
I guess it makes them the Regressive-Conservative Alliance ?

>> While the elected president is't the biggest Know-Nothing to
>> hold the post, he is destined to disappoint just about all comers.
>> Both the ladies are hanging onto power by the least of mandates, I see.
>
> Them ain't no ladies...
>

As a women with babe-in-arms is addressed as Mrs, a woman in political
office, in another country, is dubbed lady (this Lady's not for turning.)

> Clark will be gone on the 22nd, which is the longest she can delay the
> Throne Speech and the consequent No Confidence vote. I had hoped she
> would show more class by gracefully accepting reality and conceding,
> though I don't really know why I thought she would; she's a politician
> after all, and a right-wing one at that. But we still won't have the NDP
> Government that we voted for; instead we'll have the Green Government of
> just three MLAs that strategic voting brought down on us.
>
> May will (hopefully) not last much longer either. Her deal with the
> devil seems to be unpopular with everybody on all sides. And this
> horrible fire combined with the two terrorist attacks, all of them
> personally her fault, won't help. Without strategic voting in that case
> too, Jeremy Corbyn would be appointing his Cabinet right about now.
>
> And we can hope that Trump will be gone soon too. They seem to be taking
> an unconscionably long time about impeaching him; I guess they want to
> make quite sure their case is watertight before they proceed. I don't
> think strategic voting is responsible for that particular disaster, though.
>
> Lesley.
>


--

[Lesley Weston]

Indeed! It also makes the UK Tories the consorts of terrorists. There's
a meme floating around Facebook just now (you guys really are missing a
lot by not joining the other afpers on FB): A picture of May saying "We
will not negotiate with terrorists!" and another, recent, picture of her
apparently saying "We will simply form a coalition with them."

>
>>> While the elected president is't the biggest Know-Nothing to
>>> hold the post, he is destined to disappoint just about all comers.
>>> Both the ladies are hanging onto power by the least of mandates, I see.
>>
>> Them ain't no ladies...
>>
> As a women with babe-in-arms is addressed as Mrs, a woman in political
> office, in another country, is dubbed lady (this Lady's not for turning.)

Not when she has shown herself repeatedly to be no lady. A lady always
takes care that those around her are comfortable before she sees to her
own needs. Both the women you mention are taking care of themselves not
just first but only, with no concern at all for the damage they're doing
to everybody else.

[Robert Carnegie]

Technically the DUP isn't a front for terrorists.
That was the PUP or BURP or some other acronym.
The DUP are merely bigots. And technically also
a church. I assume they /know/ terrorists.
They know Sinn Fein.

There were or are lots of little "nationalist"
(IRA, or with an I there somewhere[*]) and
"loyalist" (with a U for Ulster) terrorist groups
in the North and I think they each had their
"political party" version, if only for publicity.
Lots of IRA's, presumably the same people each
time. Like "Rock Family Trees".

[*] I've been reading about Irish accents -
meaning the symbols over letters in Gaelic.
Just vowels, I think. The Royal Mail seems to be
determined to ignore them.

[real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk]

15 June 2017 at 17:25, Lesley Weston wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>Indeed! It also makes the UK Tories the consorts of terrorists.

Unfortunately in the modern world we all have to deal with terrorists, be it
old ANC, EOKA, IRA, PFLP members or any other group or their financiers, face
it for years the US financed and armed the IRA, and also those who would become
Al-Qaeda, times change, yesterdays ally is tomorrows enemy and vice a versa

What any of this has to do with AFP is beyond me though

[Nigel Stapley]

On 16/06/2017 01:03, larry wrote:

>>>
> I can't (actually I can, but despair,) that May would ally herself with
> The scots-irish Orange DUP.
> I guess it makes them the Regressive-Conservative Alliance ?

The full name of her particular mafiosi is "The Conservative *and
Unionist* Party. Their Scottish branch played on this during the
election for all they were worth (about 17p), playing the sectarian card
in those parts of the west of Scotland where the Orange mob still has
some influence. This follows on from some very nasty characters being
elected in her party's name during the local elections there in May.

This doesn't bother the 'leader' of the Scottish branch, one Ruth
Davidson, who knows that she'll get an easy ride from most of the media
because she is, a) a Tory, b) a Unionist, and c) an 'out' lesbian.

This is why most of that media are proclaiming that the Tories 'won' the
election in Scotland, despite the fact that they got less than a quarter
of the total votes, less than a quarter of the seats, and were the
benficiaries of some strange patterns of tactical voting.

(On this, see Stu Campbell's analyses at
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-great-stalemate/ and
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-cannon-fodder/ )

For my own take on things, try
http://www.thejudge.me.uk/Not_blog/Not_blog_20170608.htm and
http://www.thejudge.me.uk/Not_blog/Not_blog_20170612.htm .
--
Regards

Nigel Stapley

www.thejudge.me.uk

<reply-to will bounce>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Nigel Stapley]

On 16/06/2017 09:08, Robert Carnegie wrote:

>
> Technically the DUP isn't a front for terrorists.
> That was the PUP or BURP or some other acronym.
> The DUP are merely bigots. And technically also
> a church. I assume they /know/ terrorists.
> They know Sinn Fein.

The DUP has well-attested links with what are termed in the official
discourse, "loyalist oaramilitaries" (1), mostly the 'Ulster Volunteer
Force' and the 'Loyalist Volunteer Force', although there have also been
clear links with the 'Ulster Defence Association'. All of those groups
would be described as 'terrorists' in any other context by our
completely-fair-and-not-remotely-imbalanced-oh-dear-me-no media.

Regarding the DUP, it was founded by Ian Paisley (Snr.) because the
'Official' Ulster Unionist Party wasn't extreme enough for him, in the
same way that he founded his own sect because the one he was in was
similarly insufficiently fundy.

(In the name of fairness, I should remark that - many years later -
Paisley Snr. was a key player in the bringing of something akin to peace
in the Sax Cointies, and formed a remarkable political and personal
relationship with the also-now-deceased Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin
politician and ex-Provisional IRA man)).

>
> [*] I've been reading about Irish accents -
> meaning the symbols over letters in Gaelic.
> Just vowels, I think. The Royal Mail seems to be
> determined to ignore them.
>

Irish (*not* 'Gaelic', if you wouldn't mind; 'Gaelic' is the
sister-language spoken in western/north-western Scotland) has the 'fada'
- denoting a long vowel - as an acute accent, whereas the same thing in
Gaelic is marked with a grave.

The Royal Mail - being a thoroughly English institution, and to which,
therefore, the concept of diacritics is a total mystery - can't handle
any accents at all, especially not the circumflex accents we have in
Cymraeg, which can appear over any of the seven vowels. (4)


(1) Pro-Irish people with guns and bombs are "republican terrorists",
whilst pro-Brit people with guns and bombs are "loyalist (2)
paramilitaries (3)"

(2) Never "Unionist"

(3) Never "terrorists"

(4) a, e, i, o, u, w, y

[Nigel Stapley]

On 16/06/2017 11:41, real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

>
> Unfortunately in the modern world we all have to deal with terrorists, be it
> old ANC, EOKA, IRA, PFLP members or any other group or their financiers, face
> it for years the US financed and armed the IRA, and also those who would become
> Al-Qaeda, times change, yesterdays ally is tomorrows enemy and vice a versa

The point here is that, under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement,
the Imperial Government is obliged to stay utterly neutral between the
two 'communities' in NornIrn. By trying to set up a spatchcock
'understanding' with the DUP - a party of climate-change-denying,
women's-rights-limiting, homophobic, racist, religiously-sectarian
bigots - May is undermining the Agreement, and the wretched android
clearly thinks that this - which is likely to lead to a resumption of
violence - is 'a price worth paying' for keeping her sorry self in office.

>
> What any of this has to do with AFP is beyond me though
>
>

This is a*f*p, where we discuss anything, any time (or would, if there
were still enough of us here to conduct anything other than a series of
monologues). For strictly Pratchett-related matters, there is
alt.*books*.pratchett, which has even fewer posts.

[Brian Howlett]

On 16 Jun, real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> 15 June 2017 at 17:25, Lesley Weston wrote:
> Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>>Indeed! It also makes the UK Tories the consorts of terrorists.

> Unfortunately in the modern world we all have to deal with terrorists,
> be it old ANC, EOKA, IRA, PFLP members or any other group or their
> financiers, face it for years the US financed and armed the IRA, and
> also those who would become Al-Qaeda, times change, yesterdays ally is
> tomorrows enemy and vice a versa

Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?

Reg: Fuck off! 'Judean People's Front'. We're the People's Front of
Judea! 'Judean People's Front'.

Francis: Wankers.

> What any of this has to do with AFP is beyond me though

Er, you have been here before, haven't you?
--
Brian Howlett - Email to From: address deleted unseen
-------------------------------------------------------------
You possess a mind not only twisted, but actually sprained...

[real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk]

17 June 2017 at 0:44, Brian Howlett wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?

>Reg: Fuck off! 'Judean People's Front'. We're the People's Front of
>Judea! 'Judean People's Front'.

>Francis: Wankers.

>> What any of this has to do with AFP is beyond me though

>Er, you have been here before, haven't you?

Yeh, I have, but even this post (fun as it is) would have seemed more Pratchett
if it used

"You want the Elucidated Brethren of the Ebon Night. Three doors down."
"Who're you, then?"
"We're the Illuminated and Ancient Brethren of Ee."

[Paul .Jamison]

Well, once in a while AFP posts actually have something to do with Sir Pterry and his oeuvre (sp?), but quite often they're irrelevant.

Ah, for the days of tagging posts.

[Brian Howlett]

On 17 Jun, "Paul .Jamison" <paul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ah, for the days of tagging posts.

You will, of course, have noted that this entire thread is tagged
[I]...

--
Brian Howlett - Email to From: address deleted unseen

----------------------------------------------------------------
Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror,
and you would not have been informed...

[Richard Bos]

Brian Howlett <news-s...@brianhowlett.me.uk> wrote:

> On 17 Jun, "Paul .Jamison" <paul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah, for the days of tagging posts.
>
> You will, of course, have noted that this entire thread is tagged
> [I]...

And that I remembered to tag mine [R]!

Richard

[p. pinto]

- boo!

- looking for a little levity, if not necessarily any le(a)vening -
and prob'ly (almost srppnt.ly) no (lord) leven at all (though levens
bridge is just a little up the road thataway), close by levens hall,
it struck yr hmbl srppnt. that many a thread could, and perhaps even
should, be marked [I] not for irrelevance, but for irreverence.

- in an only slightly more just world, the title "your irreverence"
would be one bothered highly regarded, and greatly sought after...

- love, ppint.
--
'tis due to ppinqueans that set light
to nelson's hat
it glows at night

[larry]

On 2017-06-17, p. pinto <ppin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> - boo!
>
> - looking for a little levity, if not necessarily any le(a)vening -
> and prob'ly (almost srppnt.ly) no (lord) leven at all (though levens
> bridge is just a little up the road thataway), close by levens hall,
> it struck yr hmbl srppnt. that many a thread could, and perhaps even
> should, be marked [I] not for irrelevance, but for irreverence.
>
> - in an only slightly more just world, the title "your irreverence"
> would be one bothered highly regarded, and greatly sought after...
>
> - love, ppint.

'f you are the 'leventh, oi must be the twelft.

[Paul .Jamison]

On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 12:33:26 PM UTC-5, Brian Howlett wrote:

> On 17 Jun, "Paul .Jamison" <paul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah, for the days of tagging posts.
>
> You will, of course, have noted that this entire thread is tagged
> [I]...
> --

Yes, I did. That occurred to me right after I posted. Such is life.

Paul

[larry]

It has now passed the 22nd. What's happened in the Clark soap opera?

[Lewis]

It was rather glorious to be in London on teh day after the election.
The headlines in amny of the papers were hilarious and the stunning
defeat of May will, I'm quite sure, lead to the end of her political
career rather shortly.

A mere month ago the Bloody Tories were expected to gain 100 seats in
Parliament and instead they lost control of parliament and are allying
with an anti-science fringe nutter party to try to retain some control.

>>
>> While the elected president is't the biggest Know-Nothing to
>> hold the post, he is destined to disappoint just about all comers.
>> Both the ladies are hanging onto power by the least of mandates, I see.

> Them ain't no ladies...

> Clark will be gone on the 22nd, which is the longest she can delay the
> Throne Speech and the consequent No Confidence vote. I had hoped she
> would show more class by gracefully accepting reality and conceding,
> though I don't really know why I thought she would; she's a politician
> after all, and a right-wing one at that. But we still won't have the NDP
> Government that we voted for; instead we'll have the Green Government of
> just three MLAs that strategic voting brought down on us.

> May will (hopefully) not last much longer either. Her deal with the
> devil seems to be unpopular with everybody on all sides. And this
> horrible fire combined with the two terrorist attacks, all of them
> personally her fault, won't help. Without strategic voting in that case
> too, Jeremy Corbyn would be appointing his Cabinet right about now.

> And we can hope that Trump will be gone soon too.

You would think, but the GOP in the US doesn't seem to give a fuck what
Trump does, they will excuse it and ignore it all, regardless of how
clear his treason and hundreds of other illegal acts are, because they
are in control and they are going to fuck everything up as much as
possible. I can't see what their end-game is with pissing everybody
off, which makes me think there is going to be some more election
hacking and voter purging in front of the 2018 elections. If they can
disenfranchise all the non-Republicans then they can finally establish
their desired one (white) man, one vote theocracy. Otherwise, they are
going to get completely fucked in 2018. And while the party is full fo
horribly evil vindictive murderous thugs, they are not all morons.

So I'm concerned.

> They seem to be taking an unconscionably long time about impeaching
> him; I guess they want to make quite sure their case is watertight
> before they proceed. I don't think strategic voting is responsible for
> that particular disaster, though.

No, they have zero interest in impeaching him. He is doing *exactly* what
they want.

--
"You've got to dance like nobody's watching." - Kathy Mattea

[Lewis]

The latest I heard is she has essentially paid the DUP £1 billion for
their tepid support. Because of course it is more important that she
remain in power than she consider the future of her country.

But then again, she is a Tory.

--
I intend to live forever. So far, so good.

[Richard Bos]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <ohsg2a$r83$1...@dont-email.me> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> > I meant the UK election, which had just happened when I posted that, but
> > any of them would do. Also France and the Netherlands, though in each of
> > those those countries sanity prevailed and a properly-elected Government
> > is carrying on with running the country.
>
> It was rather glorious to be in London on teh day after the election.
> The headlines in amny of the papers were hilarious and the stunning
> defeat of May will, I'm quite sure, lead to the end of her political
> career rather shortly.

"Stunning defeat"... they're still the largest party by quite a margin.
They and the DUP are a majority. Labour and _all_ other parties together
except the DUP - are not! Sure, the Tories will have to form a minority
cabinet. Sure, Labour have been trounced less badly than it was the last
two times. But make no mistake, it was still Labour who were trounced,
not the Tories.

> A mere month ago the Bloody Tories were expected to gain 100 seats in
> Parliament and instead they lost control of parliament and are allying
> with an anti-science fringe nutter party to try to retain some control.

_Retain_ control. Not _regain_ control. All political posturing and
wish-fulfilment aside, it's still May who is in control, not Corbyn. Her
control may be shaky, but she does have it, and Corbyn has a smug look
on his face. It may be a deservedly smug look, but it _is_ no more than
a smug look.

> > They seem to be taking an unconscionably long time about impeaching
> > him; I guess they want to make quite sure their case is watertight
> > before they proceed. I don't think strategic voting is responsible for
> > that particular disaster, though.
>
> No, they have zero interest in impeaching him. He is doing *exactly* what
> they want.

Similarly, nobody in the Tory party but the greatest self-delusional
fool wants to oust May. You're stuck with her. Boris won't replace her,
Gove won't replace her - yet, the back-stabbing toad, Leadsome may try
to replace her but won't succeed, and Corbyn won't get a chance to
replace her for a good few years yet.

Good luck with your Brexit...

Richadr

[Dave Yeo]

They elected a speaker and read a throne speech that involved a radical
left turn and sounded like what the opposition would put in a throne
speech. Legislature is back today where a non-confidence vote is
expected to be put forward but fail due to needing all the members of
the legislature to agree. Debate will proceed on the throne speech and
then it is expected to be voted down bringing Clarke's government down.
The Lieutenant-Governor is expected to invite the opposition parties to
try to form a government (she could dissolve the Legislature forcing
another election), the speaker to resign and the opposition electing a
new speaker leaving the legislature divided 43-43+the speaker who is
supposed to be non-partisan but has the tie breaking vote. Weird times
and much unwritten constitutional law.
Dave

[Lewis]

In message <59512a1...@news.xs4all.nl> Richard Bos <ral...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> In message <ohsg2a$r83$1...@dont-email.me> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>> > I meant the UK election, which had just happened when I posted that, but
>> > any of them would do. Also France and the Netherlands, though in each of
>> > those those countries sanity prevailed and a properly-elected Government
>> > is carrying on with running the country.
>>
>> It was rather glorious to be in London on teh day after the election.
>> The headlines in amny of the papers were hilarious and the stunning
>> defeat of May will, I'm quite sure, lead to the end of her political
>> career rather shortly.

> "Stunning defeat"... they're still the largest party by quite a margin.

It was a stunning defeat.

> They and the DUP are a majority. Labour and _all_ other parties together
> except the DUP - are not! Sure, the Tories will have to form a minority
> cabinet. Sure, Labour have been trounced less badly than it was the last
> two times. But make no mistake, it was still Labour who were trounced,
> not the Tories.

That is factually incorrect. Labor gained something like 20 seats. The
Tories were expected to make *HUGE* gains and May was already positioning
herself as the second-coming of Thatcher. Even on the day before the
election the expectation was they would gain 30+ seats.

>> A mere month ago the Bloody Tories were expected to gain 100 seats in
>> Parliament and instead they lost control of parliament and are allying
>> with an anti-science fringe nutter party to try to retain some control.

> _Retain_ control. Not _regain_ control. All political posturing and
> wish-fulfilment aside, it's still May who is in control, not Corbyn. Her
> control may be shaky, but she does have it, and Corbyn has a smug look
> on his face. It may be a deservedly smug look, but it _is_ no more than

>y a smug look.

She has control for now, but she is a wounded stag limping through the
forest and the hounds are on her. She is not going to last. She paid £1
billion to keep her PMship. For now.

> Good luck with your Brexit...

It's not my Brexit, but if May continues on pushing through Brexit it
will be the end of Great Britain. The economy is already on the shitpile
and it will be so much worse. I'm trying to remember the reported
numbers, but the headline was "Brexit has already made Britain poorer"
and the number representing lost wealth and value was large.

May has already show he true colors when she said that discarding human
rights would we worth it to preserve Brexit. She seem hell-bent on
ripping up the Good Friday accord and pissing off Europe enough that
people will have nothing to do with the UK.

So, funny story. When I was going through customs in Denmark, I think it
was, the customs agent asked how long I was in Europe for and I replied
"20 days. Well, does the UK still count?" and he laughed and said, "No,
not really." "OK then, 17 days and 3 days in England."

Great Britain is vastly overestimating their importance to the rest of
Europe. No one there seemed to care at all about the UK, the election, or
Brexit and the only comments I heard were, "the sooner they leave, the
better."

When Europe stops buying British product, Britain will crater.

--
NON-FLAMMABLE IS NOT A CHALLENGE Bart chalkboard Ep. BABF13

[Richard Bos]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <59512a1...@news.xs4all.nl> Richard Bos <ral...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> >> It was rather glorious to be in London on teh day after the election.
> >> The headlines in amny of the papers were hilarious and the stunning
> >> defeat of May will, I'm quite sure, lead to the end of her political
> >> career rather shortly.
>
> > "Stunning defeat"... they're still the largest party by quite a margin.
>
> It was a stunning defeat.

Nonsense. It was a victory by a smaller margin than they hoped for, but
it was still a victory. Or would you also claim that Culloden was a
stunning defeat for the English, only because they didn't massacre the
Scots quite as badly as at Flodden?

> > They and the DUP are a majority. Labour and _all_ other parties together
> > except the DUP - are not! Sure, the Tories will have to form a minority
> > cabinet. Sure, Labour have been trounced less badly than it was the last
> > two times. But make no mistake, it was still Labour who were trounced,
> > not the Tories.
>
> That is factually incorrect. Labor gained something like 20 seats. The
> Tories were expected to make *HUGE* gains and May was already positioning
> herself as the second-coming of Thatcher. Even on the day before the
> election the expectation was they would gain 30+ seats.

It may be emotionally incorrect - you're clearly getting quite emotional
over this - but it is factually 100% correct that the Conservatives have
more seats than Labour, as well as a larger percentage of the vote. It's
factually correct that Labour could not form a majority cabinet without
the DUP; in fact, they'd need the SNP _and_ the LibDems _and_ DUP _and_
Sinn Féin (fat chance!) to get to 326. They can't even make it without
Sinn Féin! (It's also factually correct that *"Labor" is a spelling
mistake...)
Corbyn may claim a moral victory, but moral victories count for
absolutely nothing until the next election. Right now, the Conservatives
have the upper hand. They won. They didn't win as badly as they'd have
liked to, but they won. Corbyn's moral victory has gained him the right
to lead Her Majesty's Republican Opposition, nothing more.

> >> A mere month ago the Bloody Tories were expected to gain 100 seats in
> >> Parliament and instead they lost control of parliament and are allying
> >> with an anti-science fringe nutter party to try to retain some control.
>
> > _Retain_ control. Not _regain_ control. All political posturing and
> > wish-fulfilment aside, it's still May who is in control, not Corbyn. Her
> > control may be shaky, but she does have it, and Corbyn has a smug look
> > on his face. It may be a deservedly smug look, but it _is_ no more than
> >y a smug look.
>
> She has control for now, but she is a wounded stag limping through the
> forest and the hounds are on her. She is not going to last.

Please. Don't you think she looks tired? Yes, she does. So does Corbyn,
the poor little anemic tofu-eater. But none of that matters. What
matters is not that May is PM, but that the Tories form the government.
Who do you think is going to challenge her - _and_ succeed?
Not Boris, not Gove, not Leadsom, not Rudd. Certainly not Corbyn,
Sturgeon, or Nigelle Farrage. Because, however much it may pain you, the
Conservatives _won this election_ and they are forming the government.

No, the Tories are in power - tenuous power, but that's still more than
Labour has had for decades, unless you count BLiar&Broon as Labour which
I don't - and they'll stay in power until the next election. They were
stupid enough to call this one, I don't think they'll be that stupid
again any time soon.
Any challence to May will, therefore, have to come from within her own
party. And who of that self-serving lot is daft enough to take on the
wall of pain she's facing? None of them, I don't think, and those that
might won't succeed. And then, even if one does - it's still a Tory in
power, not your beloved pipe cleaner.

> It's not my Brexit, but if May continues on pushing through Brexit it
> will be the end of Great Britain. The economy is already on the shitpile
> and it will be so much worse. I'm trying to remember the reported
> numbers, but the headline was "Brexit has already made Britain poorer"
> and the number representing lost wealth and value was large.

I wouldn't trust those numbers until Brexit has come and gone, but it's
certainly true that Brexit was an own goal. But it was an own goal
before this election, as well.

> May has already show he true colors when she said that discarding human
> rights would we worth it to preserve Brexit.

Oh, she's shown her true colours long before that. A pure psychopath,
bent only on preserving her own hide. Selfish and arrogant - a true
Conservative.

> Great Britain is vastly overestimating their importance to the rest of
> Europe. No one there seemed to care at all about the UK, the election, or
> Brexit and the only comments I heard were, "the sooner they leave, the
> better."
>
> When Europe stops buying British product, Britain will crater.

Those, certainly, are true. And the Tories have scored a Pyrrhic
victory. But at the Brexit referendum, not at this election.

Richard

[Robert Carnegie]

UK election: it was a draw. Nobody won.

As you know, what follows, in this situation,
is penalties.

[Lewis]

In message <59528663...@news.xs4all.nl> Richard Bos <ral...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> In message <59512a1...@news.xs4all.nl> Richard Bos <ral...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>
>> >> It was rather glorious to be in London on teh day after the election.
>> >> The headlines in amny of the papers were hilarious and the stunning
>> >> defeat of May will, I'm quite sure, lead to the end of her political
>> >> career rather shortly.
>>
>> > "Stunning defeat"... they're still the largest party by quite a margin.
>>
>> It was a stunning defeat.

> Nonsense. It was a victory by a smaller margin than they hoped for,

Spin it however you want. She called a snap election hoping to solidify
her position and instead got her ass kicked. You can call it a win if
you are that desperate, but it was not. At all. NO ONE is calling it a
win.

> It may be emotionally incorrect - you're clearly getting quite emotional
> over this

Oh, fuck off.

--
Nothing like grilling a kosher dog over human hair to bring out the
subtle flavors.

[real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk]

29 June 2017 at 15:46, Lewis wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

Correct me if I´m wrong, but under our present system (imperfect as it may be)
doesn´t the largest seat block have the right to (try to) form a government?
and from what I see the Tories have 55 more seats than their closest rivals,
Labour would have to join with not only the Democratic Unionist Party (as has
been decried here by others) but also Scottish National Party & Liberal
Democrat to get a 2 seat lead (but still not a true majority), or mix and match
from the remaining 16 seats (one of which is the speaker)

So what do those who oppose the current ruling party want to do, keep on voting
until they get their own way?

[Nigel Stapley]

Isn't it lovely to see the good old ways returning to afp? <g, d, r>

[Robert Carnegie]

It's been tried in the past.

Or members could (voluntarily) switch parties.

The Queen governs. Time was, anyone in Parliament
could pop up to the palace and offer to form a
government, the hard part being to do it.
If there's a specific rule now, I don't know it.

[real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk]

30 June 2017 at 3:40, Robert Carnegie wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>On Thursday, 29 June 2017 17:45:43 UTC+1, real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

>> So what do those who oppose the current ruling party want to do, keep on voting
>> until they get their own way?

>It's been tried in the past.

Yeh seen that (a good whoule back though) in a bye elections where a fringe
party got the result and they re-run it to get a main line party in

>Or members could (voluntarily) switch parties.

Not in any numbers since the days of "The Gang of four" (That´s the SDP for
those who weren´t about then)

>The Queen governs. Time was, anyone in Parliament could pop up to the palace
>and offer to form a government, the hard part being to do it. If there's a
>specific rule now, I don't know it.

Don´t "think" there is a Rule as such, but logistics would seem to point to the
largest block having the best chance, of cause they could even have gone for a
minority government, as for Labour they don´t seem to be able to get on with
their own party let alone another

[Daniel Goldsmith]

On 2017-06-29, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <59528663...@news.xs4all.nl> Richard Bos <ral...@xs4all.nl>
> wrote:
>> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>>> It was a stunning defeat.
>
>> Nonsense. It was a victory by a smaller margin than they hoped for,
>
> Spin it however you want. She called a snap election hoping to solidify
> her position and instead got her ass kicked. You can call it a win if
> you are that desperate, but it was not. At all. NO ONE is calling it a
> win.

Probably more important than the seat count (outside of, you know, the
Parliament) was the demographics of the result.

Massive youth turnout, no gains for the tories in the labour marginals
that Tess spent the campaign in, complete collapse of UKIP not turning
into massive gains for the tories, collapse of tory vote among the more
educated population, strategic voting arrangements (where they were
used) worked far better than expected.

All of that makes for tough reading down at Tory Central, and those
are long-term demographics which are not beneficial to their future
prospects.

Couple that with the utter and total collapse of the popular vote
(blowing a 24% Poll lead is *unheard* of), made it all a very nice
and enjoyable exercise from this remove, and the icing was smartly
delivered in Sheffield-Hallam when the odious wretch Clegg was albeit
belatedly finished off politically.

>> It may be emotionally incorrect - you're clearly getting quite emotional
>> over this
>
> Oh, fuck off.
>

Ah, afp, how I've missed you.

--
Protected by their camouflage, the New International Militant Hedgehogs
__o __o __o __o (NIMH) Approach their Target
'/ '/ '/ '/ _____________________________________________________
*Daniel Goldsmith*

[real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk]

01 July 2017 at 19:03, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>Probably more important than the seat count (outside of, you know, the
>Parliament) was the demographics of the result.

>Massive youth turnout, no gains for the tories in the labour marginals that
>Tess spent the campaign in, complete collapse of UKIP

Unfortunately most minor UK parties (there are too many to list) seem to have a
short (effective) life span, they come and they go again, maybe if one of the
big boys honour their promise to bring in PR "when we come to power" the
situation will change but I´m not holding my breath on any of them, the system
is stacked against them, and even if they have good intent and policies the
electorate know that they cant ever win

[steveski]

On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 22:07:39 +0100, real_grizz_adams wrote:

> 01 July 2017 at 19:03, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
> Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)
>
>>Probably more important than the seat count (outside of, you know, the
>>Parliament) was the demographics of the result.
>
>>Massive youth turnout, no gains for the tories in the labour marginals
>>that Tess spent the campaign in, complete collapse of UKIP
>
> Unfortunately most minor UK parties (there are too many to list)

If I'd lived in his constituency, I'd definitely have voted for Lord
Buckethead. Or Screaming Lord Sutch (Mayherestinpeace).

It's so boring to have to simply spoil your ballot paper . . .

Long live the protest vote :-)

--
Steveski

[Robert Carnegie]

The 2010 Coalition offered a version of PR.
It was defeated in a referendum in 2011.

Before that, Gordon Brown considered installing
PR - presumably to be used in the 2010 election,
which in fact his party lost(ish) by first past
the post.

[Richard Bos]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 1 July 2017 22:07:42 UTC+1, real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> > Unfortunately most minor UK parties (there are too many to list) seem to =
> have a=20
> > short (effective) life span, they come and they go again, maybe if one of=
> the=20
> > big boys honour their promise to bring in PR "when we come to power" the=

Neither of the big boys have made that promise, AFAIAA. It would
certainly go directly against their own best interests.

> > situation will change but I=C2=B4m not holding my breath on any of them, =
> the system=20
> > is stacked against them, and even if they have good intent and policies t=
> he=20

> > electorate know that they cant ever win
>
> The 2010 Coalition offered a version of PR.

There was no coalition in 2010. A coalition is a temporary relationship
between political parties. What England had in 2010 was Cleggo fagging
for Pig-face. Don't let the public school boys convince you that fagging
is a real relationship, or that that was a coalition.

> It was defeated in a referendum in 2011.

Of course. The English don't want a democracy, they're too fond of their
feudal barons.

Richard

[real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk]

03 July 2017 at 17:33, Richard Bos wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>Neither of the big boys have made that promise, AFAIAA. It would
>certainly go directly against their own best interests.

Which is why they promise it while in oppression (Labour 2001 for example) and
renege when they are in power, or play the double bluff

Promise a referendum on PR that way those in favour vote for them and those
against assume the majority won´t vote to change the system that got them to
power or the referendum won´t happen or will fail, much the same as Brexit but
they misjudged that one, and just watch then all back peddle now

[Dave Yeo]

Same thing happened in Canada, Trudeau promised no more first past the
post elections and then reneged, claimed it was to complicated, there
was also the question of whether to have a referendum.
Here in BC, we have had referendums on it (and even proportional
representation for one election way back, the winner changed it back),
last one got 59%, just shy of the 60% threshold the government put on it.
Currently our minority government needs the support of the Greens, who
are very pro proportional representation. They wanted to introduce it
and then have a referendum. The compromise is to have a referendum in
1.5-2 years. This will also encourage the Greens not to bring down the
government. Still at 44-43, just one bye-election can change things.
Dave

[Lesley Weston]

But they'll still have a clean sweep of all three Houses (including the
white one) when they get rid of Trump and install Pence instead, so
there's no reason why they should hang onto Trump beyond his sell-by
date, which he reached around the time of his inauguration. Pence is a
monster, and perhaps more dangerous because he's not a petulant child
but a scheming adult. But at least he is an adult and an experienced
politician. The US will suffer under his rule, though no more than under
Trump's rule, but it will no longer be a laughingstock to the rest of
the world.
>
> So I'm concerned.

Well, yes. We're all concerned, including those of us living elsewhere
besides the US.

>> They seem to be taking an unconscionably long time about impeaching
>> him; I guess they want to make quite sure their case is watertight
>> before they proceed. I don't think strategic voting is responsible for
>> that particular disaster, though.
>
> No, they have zero interest in impeaching him. He is doing *exactly* what
> they want.
>

He's doing exactly what Putin wants, and what the US did to Iraq with
full knowledge and intention. Putin is destabilising a powerful country,
leaving all its systems and governance in chaos, and so removing a
threat to his own country. If the GOP can't see that then they are all
morons after all, and if they can see it but they still won't get rid of
Trump, then they too are obeying their puppet-master. Or mistress (in
all senses, perhaps): Ivanka Trump seems to be in charge of her father
now, which is something of a relief; she's nasty but sane, so things
won't be quite so embarrassing now.

Lesley.

--
My real e-mail is leswes att shaw dott ca

[Lesley Weston]

On 06-27-17 9:24 AM, Richard Bos wrote:
> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> In message <59512a1...@news.xs4all.nl> Richard Bos <ral...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

<snip>

>>> ...wish-fulfilment aside, it's still May who is in control, not Corbyn. Her

>>> control may be shaky, but she does have it, and Corbyn has a smug look
>>> on his face. It may be a deservedly smug look, but it _is_ no more than
>>> y a smug look.

In breaking news, May has asked Corbyn for help. His reply is as
entertaining as one might expect from someone in as strong a position as
he is (there's good reason for that smug look): He sent her a copy of
the Labour election manifesto, with a friendly little note.

>>
>> She has control for now, but she is a wounded stag limping through the
>> forest and the hounds are on her. She is not going to last.
>
> Please. Don't you think she looks tired? Yes, she does. So does Corbyn,
> the poor little anemic tofu-eater.

May looks tired; Corbyn looks smug, as he well may and as you pointed
out yourself.

[Lesley Weston]

On 06-29-17 11:35 AM, Nigel Stapley wrote:
> On 29/06/2017 16:46, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <59528663...@news.xs4all.nl> Richard Bos
>> <ral...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>
>>>> In message <59512a1...@news.xs4all.nl> Richard Bos
>>>> <ral...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>>>> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> It was rather glorious to be in London on teh day after the election.
>>>>>> The headlines in amny of the papers were hilarious and the stunning
>>>>>> defeat of May will, I'm quite sure, lead to the end of her political
>>>>>> career rather shortly.
>>>>
>>>>> "Stunning defeat"... they're still the largest party by quite a
>>>>> margin.
>>>>
>>>> It was a stunning defeat.
>>
>>> Nonsense. It was a victory by a smaller margin than they hoped for,
>>
>> Spin it however you want. She called a snap election hoping to solidify
>> her position and instead got her ass kicked. You can call it a win if
>> you are that desperate, but it was not. At all. NO ONE is calling it a
>> win.
>>
>>> It may be emotionally incorrect - you're clearly getting quite emotional
>>> over this
>>
>> Oh, fuck off.
>>
>
> Isn't it lovely to see the good old ways returning to afp? <g, d, r>
>

Yes it is! This is quite a respectable thread.

[Lesley Weston]

Australia and other places have compulsory voting, but they also include
a "None of the above" box. That seems pretty much ideal to me.

Didn't a Monster Raving Loony candidate get in once? And had to ask for
the Chiltern Hundreds to avoid having to take his seat?

[Lesley Weston]

On 07-03-17 5:36 PM, Dave Yeo wrote:
> real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> 03 July 2017 at 17:33, Richard Bos wrote:
>> Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)
>>
>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Neither of the big boys have made that promise, AFAIAA. It would
>>> certainly go directly against their own best interests.
>>
>> Which is why they promise it while in oppression (Labour 2001 for
>> example) and
>> renege when they are in power, or play the double bluff
>>
>> Promise a referendum on PR that way those in favour vote for them and
>> those
>> against assume the majority won´t vote to change the system that got
>> them to
>> power or the referendum won´t happen or will fail, much the same as
>> Brexit but
>> they misjudged that one, and just watch then all back peddle now
>>
>
> Same thing happened in Canada, Trudeau promised no more first past the
> post elections and then reneged, claimed it was to complicated,

In proud Liberal tradition, just as Jean Chrétien reneged on his
election promise to remove the GST. But I find myself almost liking Bill
Vander Zalm after he got the HST removed here in BC when he wasn't even
running for anything.

> there
> was also the question of whether to have a referendum.
> Here in BC, we have had referendums on it (and even proportional
> representation for one election way back, the winner changed it back),
> last one got 59%, just shy of the 60% threshold the government put on it.
> Currently our minority government needs the support of the Greens, who
> are very pro proportional representation. They wanted to introduce it
> and then have a referendum. The compromise is to have a referendum in
> 1.5-2 years. This will also encourage the Greens not to bring down the
> government. Still at 44-43, just one bye-election can change things.

Isn't it lovely the way we have no government now, but both Horgan and
Clark are making speeches as if they were Premier? I haven't heard
Weaver making such a speech yet but he should, since he will in fact be
running the province from next week.

But I'm not holding my breath about PR, or any of the other campaign
promises. Even Site C is now "under review" instead of stopped
altogether, despite the newly Green Legislature.

[Nigel Stapley]

Nope, never happened.

A lot of monstrous loonies *have* been elected, but not under that name.

[Lewis]

Pence is as guilty as Trump, and has also lied, committed perjury, and
obstructed justice.

>> So I'm concerned.

> Well, yes. We're all concerned, including those of us living elsewhere
> besides the US.

Well, yes. But I meant specifically I am concerned about the election in
2018 and the steps they are already taking to pervert it.

> He's doing exactly what Putin wants, and what the US did to Iraq with
> full knowledge and intention. Putin is destabilising a powerful country,
> leaving all its systems and governance in chaos, and so removing a
> threat to his own country. If the GOP can't see that then they are all
> morons after all, and if they can see it but they still won't get rid of
> Trump, then they too are obeying their puppet-master. Or mistress (in
> all senses, perhaps): Ivanka Trump seems to be in charge of her father
> now, which is something of a relief; she's nasty but sane, so things
> won't be quite so embarrassing now.

You forget, one of the STATED goals of the GOP is to tear the country
down so they can rebuild it as a white male theocracy. They WANT chaos.
They WANT destruction. They WANT the chance to establish their fascist
state, and the way you do that is to fuck everything beyond repair and
then claim to be saving everyone. That's the long-game here.

--
'Oh, I never play to win.' She smiled. 'But I do play not to lose.'

[real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk]

13 July 2017 at 6:06, Nigel Stapley wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>On 13/07/2017 01:44, Lesley Weston wrote:
>> On 07-01-17 2:27 PM, steveski wrote:

>> Didn't a Monster Raving Loony candidate get in once? And had to ask
>> for the Chiltern Hundreds to avoid having to take his seat?

>Nope, never happened.

Best they (David Suich in person) managed was just short of the required 5%
(4.4%) of the vote (in a 1994 bye election in Rotherham)

But they do hold 4 Parish Council seats at this time,

[Chris Zakes]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:27:08 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:

>On 06-26-17 7:36 AM, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <ohsg2a$r83$1...@dont-email.me> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snippage>

>>> And we can hope that Trump will be gone soon too.
>>
>> You would think, but the GOP in the US doesn't seem to give a fuck what
>> Trump does, they will excuse it and ignore it all, regardless of how
>> clear his treason and hundreds of other illegal acts are, because they
>> are in control and they are going to fuck everything up as much as
>> possible. I can't see what their end-game is with pissing everybody
>> off, which makes me think there is going to be some more election
>> hacking and voter purging in front of the 2018 elections. If they can
>> disenfranchise all the non-Republicans then they can finally establish
>> their desired one (white) man, one vote theocracy. Otherwise, they are
>> going to get completely fucked in 2018. And while the party is full fo
>> horribly evil vindictive murderous thugs, they are not all morons.
>
>But they'll still have a clean sweep of all three Houses (including the
>white one) when they get rid of Trump and install Pence instead, so
>there's no reason why they should hang onto Trump beyond his sell-by
>date, which he reached around the time of his inauguration. Pence is a
>monster, and perhaps more dangerous because he's not a petulant child
>but a scheming adult. But at least he is an adult and an experienced
>politician. The US will suffer under his rule, though no more than under
>Trump's rule, but it will no longer be a laughingstock to the rest of
>the world.

Trump has the, um... "virtue", for lack of a better word, of being
pretty much incompetent politically.

His border wall that Mexico is supposed to pay for isn't happening,
his secret plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days appears to be so secret that
even *he* doesn't know what it is, his "repeal and replace" of
Obamacare is going nowhere, etc. And he's so mired in political
controversy that even his supporters are having second and third
thoughts about him.

Pence, on the other hand, might actually be able to get things done.
The problem being that his "things" are all from a religious-right
perspective. Look at his record as governor of Indiana.

If we impeach one, we really need to impeach both, preferably
simultaneously. Or have a Nixon-Agnew scenario, where Pence goes
first, is replaced as VP by a political neutral (if there *is* such a
thing in Washington these days) then Trump goes.

(Apropos of nothing, have you heard Andy Serkis reading Trump's tweets
in Gollum's voice? "What's covfefe, precious?")

-Chris Zakes
Texas
--

GNU Terry Pratchett
Mind how you go.

[Nigel Stapley]

On 13/07/2017 11:12, real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> 13 July 2017 at 6:06, Nigel Stapley wrote:
> Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)
>
>> On 13/07/2017 01:44, Lesley Weston wrote:
>>> On 07-01-17 2:27 PM, steveski wrote:
>
>>> Didn't a Monster Raving Loony candidate get in once? And had to ask
>>> for the Chiltern Hundreds to avoid having to take his seat?
>
>> Nope, never happened.
>
> Best they (David Suich in person) managed was just short of the required 5%
> (4.4%) of the vote (in a 1994 bye election in Rotherham)
>

Clarification: the 5% was the threshold for them saving their deposit.
Unfortunately, we don't have a reasonable voting system, so - depending
on how many candidates were contesting the seat - they would have needed
between 25% and 50.1% to win the seat.

[Nigel Stapley]

On 13/07/2017 07:39, Lewis wrote:
<snip>

>
> Pence is as guilty as Trump, and has also lied, committed perjury, and
> obstructed justice.
>

Yur, but he's a True American Christian(TM), so he'd get away with it
when Fart-Euphemism couldn't.

[Paul .Jamison]

That's what I've said before - do an "Agnew" on Pence.

What worries me is that next in line for the presidency after the President and Veep go out the door is the Speaker of the House - in this case Paul "Dead-Eyes" Ryan. I shudder to think of HIM in charge.

I know it's highly unlikely, but I dream of the country going through the line of succession, getting rid of them one at a time. I'm unfamiliar with who's who, but I imagine they're all jerks. But sooner or later, we'll come to one guy who sees what's happening, figures that party ideology is less important than his own survival, and decides to behave himself.

I doubt that it's gonna happen, but I like the scenario.

>
> (Apropos of nothing, have you heard Andy Serkis reading Trump's tweets
> in Gollum's voice? "What's covfefe, precious?")

That was brilliant!

Paul

[John Dallman]

In article <011c689d-4d8b-44a9...@googlegroups.com>,

paul...@yahoo.com (Paul .Jamison) wrote:

> But sooner or later, we'll come to one guy who sees what's happening,
> figures that party ideology is less important than his own
> survival, and decides to behave himself.

I fear you are neglecting the extent to which the upper reaches of US
politics believe their own propaganda.

John

[Paul .Jamison]

Like I say, I doubt it's gonna happen.

Paul

[steve pearson]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:36:26 PM UTC-5, Paul .Jamison wrote:
> This is worrying.
>
> Paul

there are folks still here, but the sound of crickets is too soothing and puts us to sleep.

[Lesley Weston]

On 07-12-17 11:39 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <ok6ehp$l1p$1...@dont-email.me> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 06-26-17 7:36 AM, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <ohsg2a$r83$1...@dont-email.me> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>>>> And we can hope that Trump will be gone soon too.
>>>
>>> You would think, but the GOP in the US doesn't seem to give a fuck what
>>> Trump does, they will excuse it and ignore it all, regardless of how
>>> clear his treason and hundreds of other illegal acts are, because they
>>> are in control and they are going to fuck everything up as much as
>>> possible. I can't see what their end-game is with pissing everybody
>>> off, which makes me think there is going to be some more election
>>> hacking and voter purging in front of the 2018 elections. If they can
>>> disenfranchise all the non-Republicans then they can finally establish
>>> their desired one (white) man, one vote theocracy. Otherwise, they are
>>> going to get completely fucked in 2018. And while the party is full fo
>>> horribly evil vindictive murderous thugs, they are not all morons.
>
>> But they'll still have a clean sweep of all three Houses (including the
>> white one) when they get rid of Trump and install Pence instead, so
>> there's no reason why they should hang onto Trump beyond his sell-by
>> date, which he reached around the time of his inauguration. Pence is a
>> monster, and perhaps more dangerous because he's not a petulant child
>> but a scheming adult. But at least he is an adult and an experienced
>> politician. The US will suffer under his rule, though no more than under
>> Trump's rule, but it will no longer be a laughingstock to the rest of
>> the world.
>
> Pence is as guilty as Trump, and has also lied, committed perjury, and
> obstructed justice.

He's done all of that. But he hasn't poured out a torrent of nonsensical
tweets, he hasn't said embarrassing things to powerful foreign leaders,
he hasn't allowed himself to be recorded admitting to assault, he hasn't
declared publicly a sexual interest in his own daughter, he hasn't
publicly invited the country's enemies to hack his opponent's email
account or his own supporters to shoot her, he hasn't shown the
embarrassing lack of a grasp on the affairs of the country he's supposed
to be running... However horrible Pence is, and that's very horrible, he
is an adult and he's not senile or a narcissist or any of the other
explanations for Trump's behaviour.

>
>>> So I'm concerned.
>
>> Well, yes. We're all concerned, including those of us living elsewhere
>> besides the US.
>
> Well, yes. But I meant specifically I am concerned about the election in
> 2018 and the steps they are already taking to pervert it.

Yes, that is a problem. But now that people know what happened, perhaps
you lot will be able to prevent it happening again.

>
>> He's doing exactly what Putin wants, and what the US did to Iraq with
>> full knowledge and intention. Putin is destabilising a powerful country,
>> leaving all its systems and governance in chaos, and so removing a
>> threat to his own country. If the GOP can't see that then they are all
>> morons after all, and if they can see it but they still won't get rid of
>> Trump, then they too are obeying their puppet-master. Or mistress (in
>> all senses, perhaps): Ivanka Trump seems to be in charge of her father
>> now, which is something of a relief; she's nasty but sane, so things
>> won't be quite so embarrassing now.
>
> You forget, one of the STATED goals of the GOP is to tear the country
> down so they can rebuild it as a white male theocracy. They WANT chaos.
> They WANT destruction. They WANT the chance to establish their fascist
> state, and the way you do that is to fuck everything beyond repair and
> then claim to be saving everyone. That's the long-game here.
>

That's true. The Eminence Grease did make the rather startling claim
that he is at heart a Trotskyite, though I don't think he used the
actual word. So it's the latter option, the puppet-mistress one. Oh
well, at least she's prettier than her father; even Putin is prettier
than her father. So having to spend all day every day looking at them
won't be quite so unsettling.

[Lesley Weston]

OK. Let's hope the relevant people are working on that.

>
> (Apropos of nothing, have you heard Andy Serkis reading Trump's tweets
> in Gollum's voice? "What's covfefe, precious?")
>

Yes, I have. It's wonderful!
https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2017/jul/13/andy-serkis-transforms-into-gollum-to-read-donald-trump-tweets-video

or http://tinyurl.com/y7bcno99

[Lesley Weston]

Is there any provision in the Constitution for redoing an election if
it's proved that this one was perverted?

<snip>

>> GNU Terry Pratchett
>> Mind how you go.

GNU Terry Pratchett

[Lesley Weston]

On 07-12-17 10:06 PM, Nigel Stapley wrote:
> On 13/07/2017 01:44, Lesley Weston wrote:
>> On 07-01-17 2:27 PM, steveski wrote:
>>> On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 22:07:39 +0100, real_grizz_adams wrote:
>>>
>>>> 01 July 2017 at 19:03, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
>>>> Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)
>>>>
>>>>> Probably more important than the seat count (outside of, you know, the
>>>>> Parliament) was the demographics of the result.
>>>>
>>>>> Massive youth turnout, no gains for the tories in the labour marginals
>>>>> that Tess spent the campaign in, complete collapse of UKIP
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately most minor UK parties (there are too many to list)
>>>
>>> If I'd lived in his constituency, I'd definitely have voted for Lord
>>> Buckethead. Or Screaming Lord Sutch (Mayherestinpeace).
>>>
>>> It's so boring to have to simply spoil your ballot paper . . .
>>>
>>> Long live the protest vote :-)
>>>
>> Australia and other places have compulsory voting, but they also
>> include a "None of the above" box. That seems pretty much ideal to me.
>>
>> Didn't a Monster Raving Loony candidate get in once? And had to
>> ask for the Chiltern Hundreds to avoid having to take his seat?
>>
>
> Nope, never happened.
>
> A lot of monstrous loonies *have* been elected, but not under that name.
>

That's a shame. As urban legends go, it's a pretty good one.

[Lesley Weston]

On 07-13-17 3:12 AM, real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> 13 July 2017 at 6:06, Nigel Stapley wrote:
> Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)
>
>> On 13/07/2017 01:44, Lesley Weston wrote:
>>> On 07-01-17 2:27 PM, steveski wrote:
>
>>> Didn't a Monster Raving Loony candidate get in once? And had to ask
>>> for the Chiltern Hundreds to avoid having to take his seat?
>
>> Nope, never happened.
>
> Best they (David Suich in person) managed was just short of the required 5%
> (4.4%) of the vote (in a 1994 bye election in Rotherham)
>
> But they do hold 4 Parish Council seats at this time,

That's something. Maybe they'll reform the party now that it's so
obviously needed.

[Lesley Weston]

Or the sounds of cricket. I have pleasant memories of dozing in a
deck-chair in the University Parks of Oxford, while good-looking young
men in white clothes ambled about a green space in slow-motion.

[real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk]

13 July 2017 at 18:19, Lesley Weston wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>On 07-13-17 3:12 AM, real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> 13 July 2017 at 6:06, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>> Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)
>>
>>> On 13/07/2017 01:44, Lesley Weston wrote:
>>>> On 07-01-17 2:27 PM, steveski wrote:
>>
>>>> Didn't a Monster Raving Loony candidate get in once? And had to ask
>>>> for the Chiltern Hundreds to avoid having to take his seat?
>>
>>> Nope, never happened.
>>
>> Best they (David Suich in person) managed was just short of the required 5%
>> (4.4%) of the vote (in a 1994 bye election in Rotherham)
>>
>> But they do hold 4 Parish Council seats at this time,
>
>That's something. Maybe they'll reform the party now that it's so
>obviously needed.

I think on the national stage they are/were just a face for the protest vote
(until we have a "None of the Above" option) but at a local level they must
appeal to (and answer to) the voters, they live amongst, see them all the time,
who can say that of their MP?

[steveski]

One of their campaign pledges was to turn the EU butter mountain into an
artificial ski slope. Brilliant!

--
Steveski

[Lewis]

And each of them is an impeachable offense.

> However horrible Pence is, and that's very horrible, he
> is an adult and he's not senile or a narcissist or any of the other
> explanations for Trump's behaviour.

But his is a criminal and he has, if not colluded directly with a
foreign government to subvert the US Election, certainly covered up
for it. That makes him unfit to hold *any* office.

--
The real world was far too real to leave neat little hints. It was full
of too many things. It wasn't by eliminating the impossible that you got
at the truth, however improbable; it was by the much harder process of
eliminating the possibilities. --Feet of Clay

[Lesley Weston]

I'm certainly not rooting for Pence! Given his record, perhaps Paul's
suggestion of getting id of him first and then Trump, like Agnew and
Nixon, would work. You would just have to find some way to lose Ryan too.

[Lesley Weston]

If I had my way (hah!), all MPs would be required to live in their
constituencies. Their families would have to live there full time (three
weeks off in the summer), their children would have to go to school
there, they would have to buy their groceries there, and they would have
to be there every day that they weren't actively engaged in the House or
on committees.

There could be a comfortable hostel in Westminster for those whose
constituencies are not within commuting distance, so there would be no
need for expenses other than for journeys between their constituency
offices and London by third-class rail, by bus, or by driving their own
cars and getting just the standard distance allowance that all
government employees get when travelling on government business. All
foreign travel for the government would be arranged and paid for by the
relevant government department, with no money coming into the MP's
hands. If they want to take their families and have a holiday as well,
they can pay for the whole trip themselves, same as everybody else has to.

Also, each MP's salary would be the median income of the people in
their constituency, and they would be forbidden to hold outside
employment, to be paid for public appearances etc., or to benefit from
their savings or any other income while in office.

[Nigel Stapley]

On 15/07/2017 01:52, Lesley Weston wrote:

>>
> If I had my way (hah!), all MPs would be required to live in their
> constituencies. Their families would have to live there full time (three
> weeks off in the summer), their children would have to go to school
> there, they would have to buy their groceries there, and they would have
> to be there every day that they weren't actively engaged in the House or
> on committees.
>
> There could be a comfortable hostel in Westminster for those whose
> constituencies are not within commuting distance, so there would be no
> need for expenses other than for journeys between their constituency
> offices and London by third-class rail, by bus, or by driving their own
> cars and getting just the standard distance allowance that all
> government employees get when travelling on government business. All
> foreign travel for the government would be arranged and paid for by the
> relevant government department, with no money coming into the MP's
> hands. If they want to take their families and have a holiday as well,
> they can pay for the whole trip themselves, same as everybody else has to.
>
> Also, each MP's salary would be the median income of the people in
> their constituency, and they would be forbidden to hold outside
> employment, to be paid for public appearances etc., or to benefit from
> their savings or any other income while in office.
>

^^This.

I'd go slightly further: no-one should be allowed to stand for election
in a constituency unless their main (or sole) residence had been within
the boundaries of that constituency for a minimum of two years prior to
the election. That way, we can get rid of the 'parachute' syndrome
whereby the likes of Peter Mandelson could be elected in Hartlepool and
Steven Kinnock in Aberafan, despite their never having lived there.

[real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk]

14 July 2017 at 17:52, Lesley Weston wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>If I had my way (hah!), all MPs would be required to live in their
>constituencies. Their families would have to live there full time (three
>weeks off in the summer), their children would have to go to school
>there, they would have to buy their groceries there, and they would have
>to be there every day that they weren't actively engaged in the House or
>on committees.

In an ideal world? But then again, wasn't that the idea, a local man (we are
talking Cromwell´s time) was elected by his community to represent "them" in
matters that concered them

Anything else is a conflict of interests

[real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk]

15 July 2017 at 12:19, Nigel Stapley wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>I'd go slightly further: no-one should be allowed to stand for election
>in a constituency unless their main (or sole) residence had been within
>the boundaries of that constituency for a minimum of two years prior to
>the election. That way, we can get rid of the 'parachute' syndrome
>whereby the likes of Peter Mandelson could be elected in Hartlepool and
>Steven Kinnock in Aberafan, despite their never having lived there.

Or even been there other than for (irregular) surgeries

Maybe we should choose then like jurors (or like a national service) and they
could stand for a year

[Nigel Stapley]

That was basically what Aristotle suggested, I believe.

[real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk]

15 July 2017 at 18:57, Nigel Stapley wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>On 15/07/2017 13:24, real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> 15 July 2017 at 12:19, Nigel Stapley wrote:

>> Or even been there other than for (irregular) surgeries

>> Maybe we should choose then like jurors (or like a national service) and they
>> could stand for a year

>That was basically what Aristotle suggested, I believe.

To qoute Ecclesiastes 1:9 (the basis of the common proverb)

"What has been will be again, / what has been done will be done again; / there
is nothing new under the sun."

[Nigel Stapley]

Yur, but *they* pinched the idea from Mrs. Cosmopilite.

[real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk]

15 July 2017 at 20:23, Nigel Stapley wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>On 15/07/2017 19:10, real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

>> To qoute Ecclesiastes 1:9 (the basis of the common proverb)

>> "What has been will be again, / what has been done will be done again; / there
>> is nothing new under the sun."

>Yur, but *they* pinched the idea from Mrs. Cosmopilite.

And we are at last back in the Pritchett realms, one point to you, but given
Lu-Tze's profession may he not have said it first (relatively speaking)?

[steveski]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 20:23:48 +0100, Nigel Stapley wrote:

> On 15/07/2017 19:10, real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> 15 July 2017 at 18:57, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>> Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)
>>
>>> On 15/07/2017 13:24, real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>> 15 July 2017 at 12:19, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>
>>>> Or even been there other than for (irregular) surgeries
>>
>>>> Maybe we should choose then like jurors (or like a national service)
>>>> and they could stand for a year
>>
>>> That was basically what Aristotle suggested, I believe.
>>
>> To qoute Ecclesiastes 1:9 (the basis of the common proverb)
>>
>> "What has been will be again, / what has been done will be done again;
>> / there is nothing new under the sun."
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Yur, but *they* pinched the idea from Mrs. Cosmopilite.

<snertle>

--
Steveski

[Dom]

Actually they used to keep me awake, but we've managed to get rid of them now.

The little basstids formed a colony under our fridge. Seriously annoying :-(

("Silent" Brown crickets my backside!)

[Lesley Weston]

Yes, that should be added too.

[Lesley Weston]

Switzerland has a system whereby people serve in the government for a
short set period, and then can't serve again. It's viewed as a duty
rather than a privilege, but I think people volunteer instead of being
drafted. It would be even better if it were done like jury selection, to
weed out those who actually want to do it and disqualify them.

Switzerland also holds a referendum of the entire adult population of
the community, canton or country on every issue more important than
which day should be garbage day in which area. We could emulate that
too; it would be really easy to work with everybody being connected as
we are now.

[Lesley Weston]

A local man was elected by a minority of the men in his community, those
who were landowners. Better than nothing, but not by much.

Politics is entirely a conflict of interests: the conflict between an
MP (or whatever) doing what's best for their constituents and the need
for the MP to advance their lucrative career by pleasing those already
in power without regard for the wishes and/or needs of their constituents.

[Lesley Weston]

But crickets are cute!