[Closed] [s]New[/s] Labour

haven't the energy to debate your post.........thanks for putting the effort

No energy or effort required on my part........I simply rely on my boundless supply of class conscious revolutionary zeal 8)

I haven't got a three-legged sideboard.

You said that you were restoring a sideboard which had a leg missing - make your mind up 😕

Get this :

http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/nav.jsp?action=detail&fh_secondid=11127512&fh_view_size=10&fh_location=%2f%2fcatalog01%2fen_GB&fh_search=hitachi+18v+cordless&fh_eds=%C3%9F&fh_refview=search&isSearch=true

I think we might have found a source of perpetual energy! 🙂

You said that you were restoring a sideboard which had a leg missing

No I never. Don't let your senility make up stuff what ain't real...

I don't need a drill. I've got a drill. It's a decent Skil one. What I need is a thing like this, to clamp it into, so it's like a bench drill:

[img] [/img]

No I never. Don't let your senility make up stuff what ain't real...

It's [u]you[/u] who's going ****ing senile mate :

Elfinsafety - Member

Projects for the New Year will include a sofa which converts to a double bed for occasional guests but one what looks nice, not like a sofa bed; a dining table; [u]and rebuilding a 1970s sideboard[/u]. The coffee table will be a little indulgence piece; not sure what it'll look like yet, but I want to produce a range of designs that will hopefully get made and sold. I have a spossible conduit through which to shift stuff.

Wanted to do some stuff for years really. Can't beat a nice bit of furniture you've made yerself.

Posted 2 months ago

And :

Elfinsafety - Member

it's only a basic inexpensive thing, but I've always loved it's design. It's battered and tatty now, 35+ years on, so I thought I'd rebuild the thing. I think [u]only the cupboard and drawer handles and front leg piece will remain[/u]. Would look good with some very light blonde wood, with dark wood accents

Posted 2 months ago

OK, so I got it wrong......it's not three-legged, it's only got one leg.

So I'll start again..........How's your [b]one-legged[/b] sideboard getting on ?

BTW that drill attachment is made by "Wolfcraft" ......... go to a shop and buy one 💡

Why do you insist on upsetting me? 😥

It's got FOUR legs.

Where I can buy thing like that above in picture?

Please try to be nice and helpful.

Where I can buy thing like that above in picture?

In a ****ing tool shop. Where were you going to try ?

http://www.wolfcraft.de/jcatalog_generated/en/products/product_groups/857_product.html

There is not a shred of evidence that Labour would not have won in '97 had it not been for Blair. Indeed there is plenty of evidence that John Smith would have comfortably won the general election

Read what I wrote again, ernie. I never suggested Labour wouldn't have won in '97 without Blair (a monkey with a red rosette could probably have beaten the late '90s Tories) simply that the Tories might have found it easier to regroup had he not stolen all their ground. The question of course was actually how left wing a party is electable now (and capable of holding onto power for more than one term), given the UK public isn't historically all that keen on parties as far to the left as you favour.

of course '92 was in that period in which Labour is alleged to have been "unelectable".

Hardly - an awful lot of people thought they were going to be elected. In any case it's somewhat disingenuous to mention only the Labour vote for these elections - given a turnout of almost 78% in 1992 and only 59% in 2001, 61% in 2005 it's hardly surprising Labour got more total votes in 1992. If you look at the more significant % of the vote, Labour managed 40.7% and 35.2% in 2001/2005 compared to 34.4% in 1992 (the significant difference between 1992 and 2005 being the Tory vote falling from 41.9% to 32.4% with the rise in popularity of the LibDems squeezing both).

I never suggested Labour wouldn't have won in '97 without Blair

And I never accused you of saying it......I referred to the right-wing media myth-makers.

LibDems squeezing both

Yeah, I said : [i]What saved Blair's political skin was the fact that the Tories remained deeply unpopular, and "[b]other parties[/b]" saw their support grow.[/i]

The point was that Labour was perfectly electable before Blair - and millions [i]did[/i] elect Labour MPs. The big advantage for Blair was, as you quite rightly pointed out, that he had percentages on his side - but that's hardly a personal "credit" to him. After 1997, when people had a better idea of what he stood for, he received less total votes than Old Labour had. Which is not what the myth-makers would have you believe.