On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:03:45 +0100, "Brimstone"
 wrote:


>> May (rather than "can") I suggest that you apply your mind to finding
>> a justification for calling a vote "democratic" when people affected
>> by it are not given the chance to vote (or, even if a vote is
>> theoretically available it is only available congintent upon
>> accepting a set of beliefs which the inddividual repudiates)?
>
>One of us is obviously having a problem, perhaps you could help by 
>clarifying.
>
>If the all employees of a company (wherein there is no union representation) 
>hold a ballot to determine the wishes of the majority in respect of having 
>such representation (and all accept and stand by the majority vote) who 
>amongst those affected by it are not given the chance to vote? 
>

Those whom it is fashionable nowadays to call "Stakeholders".
<Shareholders of the company, pensioners of the company, customers of
the company, those in the local community if it's a significant
employer USW, USW, USW >

BTW Was the voting universal, free, and secret in every case ?

Derek

On Aug 30, 5:28 pm, JNugent  wrote:
> ®i©ardo wrote:
> > John Wright wrote:
> >> mym...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >>> ®i©ardo  wrote:
>
> >>>> Given my impressive tax bill, and, given that I very rarely drink
> >>>> and I don't smoke, I don't have a 42" flat panel TV, my car is many
> >>>> years old and my computer is one that I built myself, whilst my
> >>>> mobile 'phone is only good for telephone calls, it always amuses me
> >>>> to see that many of those with no job and no visible means of
> >>>> support and claiming poverty seem to be far more materialistically
> >>>> endowed than I am.
> >>> Recent governments in this country have tightened up the benefits
> >>> system so much it is impossible for anyone to be living the good life
> >>> whilst on benefits unless of course they are on the fiddle
> >>>> If none of this is anything to do with the taxation of one to fund
> >>>> another,
> >>> But this situation is the same throughout the world its alright Obama
> >>> shouting his head of in Denver the other night
> >>> but if the majority of American people vote him into the white
> >>> house then its God help them .
> >> The fact remains that Bill Clinton left a huge budget surplus that
> >> George W. Bush has reversed to a massive deficit. This (as my American
> >> friends tell me) always happens - the democrats build America up, the
> >> Republicans knock it down again.
> > Whereas in the UK it was the Tories who built up the surpluses and the
> > Labour Party who went for even bigger levels of indebtedness than
> > previously known. I wonder if the IMF will get involved again?
> > "Crisis, what crisis?"
>
> Darling has now admitted that there is a crisis, and that it is worse than
> any previous crisis still within (reasonable) living memory.
>
> But apparently, it isn't the fault of the party that has been in charge for
> the past eleven years and four months. Perhaps he and von Braun will get
> Blair back on TV to blame it on the forces of conservatism.

I don't understand why anyone thinks that which of the conservative
parties happens to be in government makes any difference.

Surely the reason for the crisis is that the financial institutions
that now fund both largest parties (NOT the unions) have effectively
been printing money by allowing house prices to rise to five times
what they should be and basing all their forecasts on the insane
assumption that all those correspondingly enormous mortgages are going
to be paid back.

Does which person sits in Downing Street make diddly squit of a
difference to this situation?

On Aug 30, 8:20 pm, Stimpy  wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:28:44 퍝, JNugent wrote
>
>
>
> > Darling has now admitted that there is a crisis, and that it is worse than
> > any previous crisis still within (reasonable) living memory.
>
> 60 years according to the quote I read.  That means he's predicting it'll be
> be worse than the IMF, three-day week, winter of discontent, 1973 oil crisis
> and Suez oil crisis.
>
> As might have been predicted, once 'real' Labour got back into power after
> the New Labour project came and went, they managed to comprehensively screw
> up the economy in less than a year

Where does one start ...

Brown is not "Old Labour" but has continued where Bliar left off.

Things in the real world that politicians pretend to control, but
which really control politicians, have not so much changed but a
rather large bubble has burst just after Bliar scarpered.

The banks have taken fifteen years to screw up the economy through
pretending that the stupidly high house prices correspond to real
mortgage repayments that they can treat like money they've got to
spend.

On 30 Aug, 16:13, "Paul Scott"  wrote:
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>
> > Who was the guy who was told to "think the unthinkable" on reforms,
> > and when he was silly enough to do just that, got sacked?
>
> Frank Field, MP for Birkenhead, IIRC


Yes, it was Frank Field.

He did exactly as he was asked, then fell out with Harriet Harman, his
boss, who (unlike Frank Field) completely lacked the courage to do
what needed to be done.

The problem was that the reforms that Frank Field proposed would
mostly have affected traditional Labour voters, their relations or
friends.  So Harriet Harman vetoed it on the grounds that the reforms
would have affected her popularity in the country.

What made her think that she *had* any popularity is anyone's guess.

Can anyone explain to me, in layman's terms (I am only a bus driver, 
after all) how the road sensors for traffic lights work?

Brian.

"Brian Robertson" <me@[nospam].com> wrote


> Can anyone explain to me, in layman's terms (I am only a bus driver, after 
> all) how the road sensors for traffic lights work?




Metal and metal detectors.




-- 
Regards, Vince.

Harry Monk's Long Distance Diary   Luton-Huelva

http://trucknetuk.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=34657 (New 9th August 2008)

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:35:37 +0100, Brian Robertson wrote
(in article <Jzmuk.95780$W71.79899@newsfe12.ams2>):

> Can anyone explain to me, in layman's terms (I am only a bus driver, 
> after all) how the road sensors for traffic lights work?
> 
> Brian.

Hall effect and/or transponders. Google either/both for in depth explanations 
better than I can give.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

In uk.transport, Brian Robertson wrote:
>Subject: OT cos it isn't about Doug, but.....

... it soon will be.

-- 
Mike Barnes

"Brian Robertson" <me@[nospam].com> wrote in message 
news:Jzmuk.95780$W71.79899@newsfe12.ams2...
> Can anyone explain to me, in layman's terms (I am only a bus driver, after 
> all) how the road sensors for traffic lights work?
>
> Brian.



some sort of radar/ doppler effect / hall effect thing on top of the lights 
AFAIK. The ones on the bridge near here work really well. Sometimes as I'm 
approaching 300yds or so away I can see them turn to red, but they change to 
green again almost immediately if there's nothing coming. It can't be a 
sensor in the road, as I never get near where I presume one would be before 
they start to change again.

Mike P