PDA

View Full Version : Dear Labour Voters....


VinRouge
6th Sep 2008, 22:01
Saw this and thought of jet blast....
http://bastardoldholborn.*************/2008/09/dear-labour-voters.html
Dear Labour Voters

We meet at last. Itís been 11 years and youíve enjoyed every moment, havenít you?

You had **** all but werenít happy watching others get on, so you voted for the grinning slimeball who offered you something for nothing, didnít you? Guess who got rich? You or him?

I digress. Letís get back to you lot. All 9 million of you. How are things? Still smiling? Youíve had 11 years to make the best of it. So letís look at what you have achieved. All 9 million of you.

Whilst youíve been enjoying cheap credit, the rest of us have noticed that we donít actually own our country anymore. Whilst youíve been enjoying hot tubs, 4x4ís, gas fired BBQís, nail studios, the hairdressers and trying to keep up with the Beckhams, the Magna Carta has been torn to shreds and thrown away. Whilst little Tyson has been riding around on his Argos 27.9% APR financed BMX, 900 years of British History has been shat on.

Ever wondered why you donít have a villa in Tuscany? Ever wondered why everyone else takes holidays in the Caribbean whilst you go to Menorca?

Itís because you are thick and lazy. And along came a Party that told you being thick and lazy was no good reason for you NOT to have what they had.

You stupid, stupid *****. Guess where Tony Blair is now? Do you think he is drawing the curtains on his two bed terraced house, full with M&S trinkets, to hide from the postman? Like you are? Do you think he wakes at 5am, shitting it that the bailiffs will be there at 11 to take away his new Nissan?

Cut to the chase. Youíre up to your ******* eyes in it. £20K, £30K on the plastic? Tax credits arenít going to help pay that are they? Overtimeís going to be cut because thereís a recession coming. Oooppps. Thatís what been paying the minimum due every month, isnít it? Whilst youíve been buying sovereign rings, Tag Heuers and Tescos Finest to impress your parents, the party that promised you a shot at being loaded without doing anything has ****** it all up. And guess who is going to pay?

I know your parents were hard up. I know you grew up with **** all. I know your parents couldnít give a shit about getting you through school properly. They were too busy wife swapping or down the bingo or social. I know you laughed at your teachers.

Guess what?

Youíre ******. Totally, properly ******. You are going to lose your houses, cars, plasmas, koi carp and Nikes. Think your parents were hard up? Just ******* wait six months. You will KNOW what a diet of pasta and ketchup tastes like. No more Dominoes Pizza in front of the Simpsons on Sky, no more Tandooris. Get your fat, lazy arses in the kitchen and ******* cook something. Your kids will hate you as their PS3ís head over to Cash Converters, your wife will hate you as you trade in her Louis Vuitton handbag and you will hate yourself when you take a carrier bag out to the car to clear the glove compartment as the bailiff waits.

I hate all 9 million of you. I wish you all the plagues of hell. I want to see the four horsemen of the apocalypse in your Next furnished living room.

In your greedy, petty little pursuit of free ďstuffĒ you allowed MY country, MY rights and MY life to be turned over by a bunch of ******* snake oil salesman.

I hope it costs you everything, you shites. I can handle 9 million suicides, and frankly with no major wars, thereís no other way weíll get rid of you *****.

Richard Taylor
6th Sep 2008, 22:22
Go ON, tell it like it REALLY is!! :eek: :D

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
6th Sep 2008, 22:31
Bloody beaut! A true speaker.

That does deserve a wider circulation.

Incidentally; the link's broken. Try http://www.order-order.com/2008/09/naughtie-wishes-democrats-good-luck.html (http://www.order-order.com/2008/09/naughtie-wishes-democrats-good-luck.html)

VinRouge
6th Sep 2008, 23:47
Below Taken From Guido Fawkes Website, absolute cracker as well.

How can the UK be so rich when it produces so little? The UK makes nothing but trouble. A basic lack of regard for the real value of money and people. Money and life is cheap in the UK.



The UK is amongst the worst, greatest indebted economies/countries in the world. The Bank of England has given the four main UK banks £200 billions worth of Treasury gilts, in plain speaking cash, in the last nine months - the special liquidity scheme. That figure almost matches the total losses to date announced by all the world's banks since the start of the credit crunch last August. The UK banks are more insolvent than the American banks or European banks. The Bank of England has in return for £200 billion cash taken unable-to-be-sold mortgage assets. If any of the UK banks that borrowed go bust in the next three years these assets being held by the BoE on behalf of the UK taxpayer will have to be sold. The current market rate for these assets is firesale or worse. Lehman and Merrills got 20% of face value in sales last week.



Hypothetically the UK taxpayer stands to be on the hook for £160 billion of increased national debt and interest payment from this one bank bailout scheme alone. Northern Rock and its expected multi-billion liabilities are separate to that.The UK is bust. Stamp duty is an incidental.



The UK economy was built on speculation, not real value-adding industry. It's finished, over. The banks own your pathetic country. The banks are too big and powerful to go bust. The banks' owners own the politicians. The Bank of England will roll over debt due for repayment and increase the liquidity schemes further as the housing bust increases. The pound will become utterly worthless as more and more gilts are issued. Zimbabwe looms on the horizon.



You, the people of the UK, can moan and kick about Labour this, Conservative that. It's immaterial. You consciously/semi-consciously as a nation decided years ago to sell your soul/nation to the devil for the short-term good times. You convinced yourselves that making things, industry was passe. You believed that cutting hair, nail bars, coffee shops were real wealth creation, and most ridiculous of all that a place to live and raise good families was secondary to 'investing' and making a quick buck. Live by the sword die by the sword.



Some good may come from this pauperisation of the vast majority of the UK. They may draw in their horns and finally realise that even if they still wish to play the world military power and policeman, invading and destroying other countries, there is no more money to pay for it.



Eventually, it may be hoped that like the majority of most other countries without a colonial, world-power past the actual important thing is to live in one's own country and make the best of it for the generations to follow. Build up its industry, its education and preserve its natural resources. Until the UK and its people get to that stage it will continue to be regarded as a ridiculous shell-economy that has an addiction to interfering militarily in other people's affairs.

Dan D'air
7th Sep 2008, 10:08
At the risk of a little thread creep, I have always voted, honestly believe that it does count and it has never been for Labour (or the tree-huggers either). The sad thing about all of this is that most of us knew exactly what Labour were, are and always will be like. As VinRouge's post so rightly says, the country is now F&"k*d.

Beatriz Fontana
7th Sep 2008, 10:13
I think the phrase is FUBAR....

Dan D'air
7th Sep 2008, 10:16
Sadly Beatriz, the general populace (We aren't allowed to say man in the street anymore, as it is deemed too "exclusive") have now come to accept this as SNAFU.

BillHicksRules
7th Sep 2008, 11:12
Oh and the Tories would have done it all different!!!

If you believe that then I know a guy who can get you a good deal on Tower Bridge!!

Gertrude the Wombat
7th Sep 2008, 11:21
Oh and the Tories would have done it all different!!!
Too right! - with interest rates at their favourite 15% rather than Labour's 5% there wouldn't have been all those problems with cheap credit!!

(Every financial project I do has one "what-if" column on the spreadsheet for "what if the Tories get back in and interest rates go back up to 15%". If I couldn't survive this scenario I don't make the deal.)

Dan D'air
7th Sep 2008, 11:36
The reason that the economy had been so good was the legacy of the Tories. Ten years of a Labour government and guess what?? They have done their usual trick and effed everything up again.

Avitor
7th Sep 2008, 11:50
In the past, with the exception of Attlee's, one term of labour at a time was enough.
This time, they had a glib conman at the helm and were given licence to finish off our country.
One of their most evil acts was to politicise man made global warming.
The second was to open up our borders to all and sundry......the third....the fourth...the...

SpringHeeledJack
7th Sep 2008, 13:23
....and whilst we were sleeping, our favorite couple have moved into ANOTHER home (to add to the various others that they have).....He came, he saw, he... :mad::mad: :ugh:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053155/Blairs-B-Q-party-Tony-Cherie-hold-house-warming-new-5-75m-home--theres-sign-Gordon.html

I never realized that a P.M's earnings were so much. :rolleyes:


Regards


SHJ

airship
7th Sep 2008, 14:12
SHJ, unless I'm otherwise mistaken, the photo in the Daily Mail article is somewhat disingeniuous, in the sense that we're shown what is obviously an extremely ostentatious stately-home. But having read the article, I'm left with the distinct impression that the Blairs only occupy one part (not sure which one) of the group of 3 main buildings that constitute that particular stately-home...?!

Which naturally leads one to ask the question: Who owns 'the other parts' of that magnificent stately-home? Whatever, being a listed property of such magnitude, I imagine that an important percentage of the costs of maintaining such a property might be financed by the National Trust, if only some parts of it at least were open to the general public for some time during the year. I truly believe that those who contribute to that great institution have kept more stately homes under UK private control - and out of the hands of those usurping foreigners such as the Russians most recently, than any number of government-introduced tax-breaks or concessions in recent years.

I wonder whether (or rather, how many), if any of the UK's in theory 'non-resident' super-rich have bought any of the listed, if not actually National Trust nominally-owned homes (especially since these people have only to fork-out a £35,000 flat tax now as a charge for keeping their non-domiciled status, which protects their foreign assets from UK taxation - a move apparently approved by both Labour and the Conservatives)?!

Wouldn't it be funny if it cost the UK taxpayer more than this miserly £35,000 a year merely in taxpayers' contributions in maintaining listed properties owned by said individuals...?! :(

But not to worry, as this BBC report clearly identifies (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7600487.stm), we will have to seriously consider extending these sorts of exceptional advantages and concessions to the home-grown rich, unless we wish to see them fleeing overseas to escape punitive UK taxation, just as the Russians have found refuge here in UK...? :rolleyes:

So, which of the 2 (Labour or Conservative) will be the first to propose that the

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44363000/gif/_44363118_unequal_income203x255.gif

top 10% of UK residents be allowed to escape normal income taxes and get away with paying a cheaper £35,000 annual flat tax (in order to keep them resident here)...?! BTW, so far as I understand it, the top 10% have an even greater ownership of assets (compared to general income). :p

And maybe issue badges that they could wear (hey, I pay £35,000 in taxes annually) so that we could 'humbly' make way for them when they walk the UK pavements (especially when preceded by their bodyguards)... :}

Hey, I'm not a communist or Maoist brick (I'll admit to being a meowist though), far from it, but I recognise the dangers of societies where all the assets are too heavily concentrated in the hands of a few (capitalism) and where noone outside of the state or its' favoured individuals (communism generally - and what nowadays I call hereditary capitalism) has much chance.

There are very good reasons why so many 'older European' properties were built almost like castles, or at least with high defensive walls. Even very modest ones. It sort of explains why so many modern UK properties owned by the wealthy are also seemingly electronically-protected fortresses, unless they opt for the veritable traditional castle with moat. And why so many rich Americans in their own way tend to congregate in communities behind chain-linked fences and private-patrols. It is not because of a fear of simple thieves, it is due to a centuries-old fear - an appreciation, if not acceptance perhaps, that there exists a delicate (and ever-changing) balance between the utility of private capital and the over-concentration of private capital. With results in the latter case at least, of the general population not only working for the state until August each year, but having the impression at least, that it also works for private capital from September until October...

The top 10% have much to fear over the next few years IMHO. They may have gotten away with the idea that by buying a superyacht, Gulfstream V or whatever else that they were contributing as much as simply accumulating. But as is emerging now, most 1st World citizens don't have a sufficient enough margin remaining between their incomes and outgoings today, to pay for the super-rich' expectations of a 5-10% return on their accumulated capital.

BTW, in my personal experience, it would be a waste of time for anyone to seriously attempt to change the attitudes of these people. They've been raised (at least to the extent that single underage moms also have), that they will be protected and their ascendencies are assured. I can merely smile when coming across (the very rare) examples of the very rich attempting to 'give back'. When it comes to the Bill Gates and Warren Buffetts of this world, well, the size of their 'donations' is obviously important. Having said that, we shouldn't be 'closed' to the idea that such fortunes were also accumulated because of real monopolies that noone (including our own governments) felt confident enough to challenge. So, in a way, these are almost like general taxpayer funds diverted to a cause (however congratulatory) but which mainly glorify one person...?! Did the guilt come first, or was it always Bill Gates' intention that an indirect and 'corporate' taxation was going to be more productive in the long run...?! Also, one was drawn to the example of Warren Buffett. Apparently whatever he promised to donate, would nevertheless leave him with a few $ billion to spare. That should give humanity a lot of hope and continued belief in philantrophy - to see a 70 year old nevertheless insist on hanging onto such wealth in the latter stages of life. Especially from someone who apparently eschews the usual billionaire spending habits...?! Hey, I'd be perfectly content with a 3 or 4 million Euros invested in small businesses here to last me through till I die. But the old man from Nebraska apparently requires 1,000 times as much...?! Are we talking about people with little tastes or little taste...? :rolleyes:

In the meantime, if you want to do some good, feed some stray cats (and hedgehogs). You won't receive any tax breaks or recognition (except perhaps from those you're helping). And that is the way it should be.

Krystal n chips
7th Sep 2008, 14:35
:hmm: When I read this wonderful piece of rhetoric, I wondered if :

(a) it was a leaked copy from Central Orifice of Cameron's valedictory speech in 2010....lets not forget that for the(Con) servative party, being in power is akin to having multiple orgasms every day after all.....or

(b) the Daily Mail's leader column for the day after the election

or both of course. :E

Anyway, for those who missed it, the birth of the service sector came about one spring day when the Blessed Witch from Grantham decided that the nasty manufacturing base in the UK was no longer required......so she, and a few willing sychophants and associated anal fixated lickers decided to close these facilities.....that's sorted that then !...next, she decided to revamp the education system...the last thing the party required was an educated populace after all...perish the thought.....and then the party decided that privatisation was a jolly good wheeze as well.....so they did,,,,and the effects of all this are now currently being felt....the legacy was indeed enduring as was the intention after all.

So the White Knight, aka Trust me Tone, arrives to save the UK and for the first 5 years does a fairly decent job...but makes a classical mistake in surrounding himself with the most inept and duplicitous shower of crass incompetents he can find....no point in damaging the ego after all by recruiting dissenters....and thus Nu Labour proceeds to continue in the finest traditions of the (Con) servative party.

And the difference is, what, precisely ??.

And for those who are so blinkered as to think that the next Tory Gov't is actually going to be the saviour of the UK, think again....it may be "nice and fluffy" for a couple of years..just to lull the plebs into a false sense of well being....but then the "fun"begins......for the chosen few of course...and by then Cameron will have had the standard "Ah, come in Cameron, jolly good job you did getting us elected, now here's a few lucrative directorships for you, close the door on the way out, your finished as leader as from today" Tory knife between the shoulders.

Wedge
7th Sep 2008, 14:36
Great article.

As a Labour voter and proud of it, I wear the badge of the hatred of that bitter, sad, and not to mention wrong, individual with great relish.

And who told you that it was 'your' country?

Krystal, you are spot on. The strangest thing about the hatred of NuLabour from the right is that they don't appear to be able to grasp the simple fact that they have had a Tory government for the past 11 years. Cameron.... heh..... do me a favour.

:ok:

Doors to Automatic
7th Sep 2008, 15:17
The real beauty is that I don't feel the need to slag off this government or the voters that have allowed it to prosper for so long any more.

Gone are the days of being shouted down as some sort of fanatic for my common-sense-based mildly right-wing views. Its actually quite boring now. Everyone I have spoken to in the last year hates Gordon Brown.

No, no need to be bitter or angry any more. Just put the champagne on ice and wait a maximum of 20 months. :ok:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
7th Sep 2008, 15:20
VR - I couldn't give a shit about the labour party one way or the other, but ... do you have any of your own opinions, or do you always regurgitate what others have said? :confused:

david_gannon
7th Sep 2008, 15:45
Good point Wedge, also everyone seems to have forgotten the little economic experiment that the Conservatives undertook during the late '70s and '80s.....look how that turned out. Is it not just a case that we are still feeling the effects of that and that New Labours approach was only an attempt to clean that mess up?

CATIII-NDB
7th Sep 2008, 16:49
I am a Socialist and I have never voted for "New labour" - Quote "so you voted for the grinning slimeball who offered you something for nothing, didnít you? Guess who got rich? You or him?" - Quite right and I'm no Tory - That grim account in a later posting about FUV's , 20-30 K on plastic and Posh Watches, just about hits the mark as does the Income Distribution Pie Chart - Yes this time it is the "Prosperious Middle Class" that is really going to take a Hit - Possibly for the first time in British Post Colonial History - The Great con of Credit begetting more Credit in an updraft of greed has come to an end and everyone's going to suffer - Did this stop New Labour ordering two new Carriers to enhance our word presence ? No - The cold eye of history is looking back at us - A deluded bunch governed by a slack arsed bunch of yestony's. Policico's driven by their own hubris - were we really that stupid. Talk back in anger.
( OECD forcasts that we will be the only major Western Economy to Go into recession this Year . From BBC.)
I won't start to rant aout the damage inflected by MT. CAT III.

Track Coastal
7th Sep 2008, 17:06
In trying to research this interesting topic, I came across this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Britain

Old Grey
7th Sep 2008, 17:36
Well, maybe a few more of you will be bothered to get off your arses and go out and vote next time, eh? :hmm:

In a democracy, people generally get the government they deserve.

The history of the UK over the past couple of decades seems to bear this out to perfection.

Flash2001
7th Sep 2008, 19:59
Incompletely true. In a democracy everyone gets the government that a majority deserves.

After an excellent landing you can use the airplane again!

Avitor
7th Sep 2008, 20:03
"Incompletely true. In a democracy everyone gets the government that a majority deserves".

....Flash 2001

So Prescot's 'postal votes' had nothing to do with the wafer thin majority? :cool:

Old Grey
7th Sep 2008, 20:12
Incompletely true. In a democracy everyone gets the government that a majority deserves.

Pah, Sir! You bandy with semantics. :=

Note my use of the word 'generally'.

BOFH
7th Sep 2008, 20:17
By and large, socialists are the products of their fathers - by their being nonexistent, underachievers or bullying. How else could you explain the desire to control the lives of others, than to have had a ghastly childhood?

It must have been awful, seeing those people around you - happier than you, wealthier than you, with - it would seem - a smug silver spoon waggling out of their mouths. Wouldn't it be jolly to take the smirk from those plummy cheeks? Why should they have all the fun? I'll teach them for calling me 'Oxfam Ollie'!

Socialists are nothing more than blackguards. They steal money that's been hard-fought for to squander on their outrageous projects. They pervert what passes for society by 'putting across messages', rather than addressing what's wrong.

They contaminate their spheres of influence, stifling any form of innovation or entrepreneurship. Bound to their mother's nipple. they just don't want to let go and try the Heinz mashed apple of independence.

My condolences.

BOFH

CATIII-NDB
7th Sep 2008, 20:43
"Markets" are good at satisfying the instantious need of supply and demand but they do not "Think ahead" in the sense of what do we do when it snows or when the oil runs out. The problems we face are the sort that demand a 30 year mind set (I'm a bit like that anyway) - Electricity supply and future demand management - We have left that to the Markets and look very hard where its got us, using imported gas to generate electricity - Great move. North Sea Gas & Oil, we have decided to exploit the reserves as quickly as technicaly feasable - We have had the benefits and now its payback time. I notice you are dual based, London & Frankfurt - I will be interested to see which city keeps the lights on in Winter; in 10-15 Years time. Norway, a test case, compare & contrast. Social ownership has not always proved a desaster - Think of the developement of the National Grid in the 1930's & 1940's in the UK.

Where would Boeing be now , without those contracts for those KC135's
all those years ago ?

CAT III.

BOFH
7th Sep 2008, 21:24
Only Scope clients could come up with the idea of using any non-fissile material as being a feasible solution to our energy needs.

Markets do look ahead. They are immune to the pork barreling which inevitably accompanies political campaigns. Sometimes they are wrong. A friend of mine was the chairman of a merchant bank. He dismissed their involvement in mobile telephones in their nascence, asking "Who'd be fool enough to walk down the street talking on one of these things?"

Ouch.

On the other hand, a friend of mine recommended I get into a certain oil share, about five years ago. Nice.

This is JB, where aviation is a peripheral topic, but I take your KC135s and raise you Concorde.

BOFH

CATIII-NDB
7th Sep 2008, 21:53
So I cannot imagine you wearing a "Smiley No Nukes Thanks Badge" even one that glows in dark version, provided to those of us who will be shivering the darkened basements of soon to be repossed homes, in the cold winter of the 75p per KW/H future. I will swap your 11 Production Concordes or were there more? for say 3% of the revenue accruing to Boeing for the 7-7 family of people carriers - Done deal Ta ! and where's my bonus. PS Was the then minister for avaition, an MP for the factory where Concorde was crafted Hummmmm. Sadly agree on the Fissle material needed to keep the lights on. A SH** state of play if ever there was one. I should have been a Banker. Thanks

Old Grey
7th Sep 2008, 22:17
Do you always project that much, BOFH? :cool:

Flash2001
7th Sep 2008, 22:28
I don't know about Prescott, not being from the UK.

I too use the word "generally" when I think I'm going to need an escape hatch later.

After an excellent ...

TBirdFrank
7th Sep 2008, 23:55
I'll see your Freddie and raise you a Fannie - or something like that - and no - I did not vote for this lot either!

priapism
8th Sep 2008, 05:28
I do fear that in a few years time post#1 may well apply to Australia too!

tio540
8th Sep 2008, 06:03
Time for Great Britain to approach the great Prime Minister Rudd of Australia. He should solve all your problems.:)

angels
8th Sep 2008, 09:21
Have you seen what those pinkoes in the States have done??

Nationalisation??!! Harumph, harumph.

If you live by the capitalist sword, you should die by it.

And yet when its the poor bankers (yes, I suppose I'm one) are in the scheisse then their buddies in government bail them out.

Lets face it folks, we can argue until we are blue (or red) in the face. This world is effectively (or ineffectively) run by an unelected mix of bankers, businessmen and civil servants.

eastern wiseguy
8th Sep 2008, 09:51
the poor bankers

No such animal

CATIII-NDB
8th Sep 2008, 09:52
May I take this oppertunity to congradulate the Neo Con (should that begin with an F ) right wing rapture awaited with glee administration, with its nationalisation of Fredie Mack & Fannie Maye morgage providers - Clause 4 not only; but Claws on the tiller of the free market great !. Mega bucks to underpin the finances of a big part of the US financial system - Time for a choirus of "Hail to the red flag , our economy has started to sag" or the "People's flag is red,white & Blue, the patriot act will soon get you."

With my cold dead hand holding my Moose hunting spoon; I nearly quote one A Lincon " It is held that All men (and Moose hunters) are created equal and we stand as a nation in debt big time; before various soverign wealth funds." - Perhaps we are close to the "end times" of Bush & Co.

In god we trust and nationalise we must.

CAT III.

Effluent Man
8th Sep 2008, 09:58
A good part of the problem is the entrenched positions and the bitterness of conflict.I would be willing to wager that most voters follow their parents,quite simply because that is the atmosphere you are immersed in as a kid,like religion it permeates into you insidiously and before you know where you are you are a Labour,Tory or Lib Dem,just like mum and dad.

So what are the chances of this happening by accident, well none really,you effectively don't have free will over who you vote for.The argument that you are going to be poor by voting Labour is a dishonest one.My dad voted Labour all his life,and was poor-ish.

I voted Labour in 97,2001 and 2005,because on balance I thought Blair was the best candidate on offer.I own my business(paid for),live in a (paid for) 5 bed farmhouse and drive a (paid for)Mercedes. Since 97 my guess is that my personal wealth has trebled.

This isn't because of,or in spite of,the Labour Government.It's largely because I don't have kids at private schools,holidays in Barbados and St.Moritz, a wife with fifty grands worth of jewelry.I live well,but not extravagantly.

What does gripe me a bit about the Tory supporters is that an awful lot of them live high on the hog then whine when the gravy train hits the buffers.In ideological terms it's me who is the Tory,working hard and salting it away,

Anyway,here's my list of PM's since 1945,best to worst.

1.Blair
2.Churchill
3.Attlee
4.MacMillan
5.Wilson
6.Heath
7.Callaghan
8.Major
9.Home
10.Eden
11.Thatcher

All weighted to take account of "events" as MacMillan would have said.

CATIII-NDB
8th Sep 2008, 10:06
Basicly Agree with your list, I would place Wilson higher - Thatcher in exactly the right place - Yes for the minimum pay acts - but Blair needs to be at No 10 on your list re Iraq. - We have not felt the historic consequences yet.

CAT III

Parapunter
8th Sep 2008, 10:16
Not that I'm any great fan of Major's administration - back to basics looks hollow in light of his extra marital flings, but I think his contribution to ending the troubles in Northern Ireland is often and unfairly IMHO, overlooked.

Der absolute Hammer
8th Sep 2008, 10:29
The Effluent List has at minimum one fault line.
Blair took you into a war.
Churchill got you out of one.

Avitor
8th Sep 2008, 10:38
Blair, at the top of that list saddens me, I shall sulk all day.....and I mean that. :*

VinRouge
8th Sep 2008, 10:47
The conservatives need to return to grass-roots TRADITIONAL conservatism; elimination of the debt based economy, elimination of the unions, major investment in productive industries. Reform of the education system to the end that those that choose not to want education are ejected from the education system, but not given benefits until they complete at least 5 years paying into the tax system. Elimination of the welfare state for those feckless losers that choose not to work. Announcement that Interest rates WILL be raised until inflation is controlled. NI contribution rebates for those that pay for private healthcare insurance, in the knowledge they are a lower burden on the NHS. A basic return to the gold standard. Maximum salary multiples should be imposed on the major lenders to prevent profligate speculation in the housing market; profit on property should be taxed at 80%. Control of M4 money supply in line with inflation.

The money that is saved, once the UK budget is at least balanced, should be given to those poorest paid individuals to support the family unit. More money should be provided to poorer families with exceptionally gifted children. Local communities, not society as a whole, should be provided with grants to support living as a community unit, instead of an uncaring society. Tax reforms should be brought in to effectively support the family unit, as is done in France. Married couples should be taxed as a couple, not as individuals.

If the americans need a shining light, I suggest they look towards the like of Ron Paul, about the only politician that seems to speak sense in this modern world.

Maggie was unpopular because she had to fix all the cock-ups generated by the previous Labour government that did exactly what the current Labour government did; spend huge sums of cash that we didnt posess. Inflation is yet another form of taxation you know... If she hadnt sacked all the coal miners, we would have seen huge sums of public cash now compensating the coal miners due to the numerous health problems generated from such unclean working practices. Oh, in years to come, with global oil running out, UK coal may provide the saviour to the UK economy that will be required as a result of pressure on energy supplies. The only reason Maggie was unpopular t'up north was Northerners dont particularly like facing up to the truth, that they are a net burden on the state, with the likes of Liverpool, a region with very little industrial base, having a population with a 25% dependency on benefits.

Beatriz Fontana
8th Sep 2008, 12:33
angels,

Lets face it folks, we can argue until we are blue (or red) in the face. This world is effectively (or ineffectively) run by an unelected mix of bankers, businessmen and civil servants.

And add the unelected consultants and quangos that the government insist on bringing in...

Binoculars
8th Sep 2008, 13:14
Angels, I confess to waiting with a lot of interest for the bail out of Freddie and Fanny to be justified by the brave proponents of a free market, but on the eponymous thread they are strangely silent.

Perhaps they are all closet utilitarians after all?

I wouldn't, of course, dare mention this in the American elections thread lest I be told my position was unwelcome as a foreigner. It's an interesting exercise to click on the number under "Replies" in that thread and have a look at the top ten contributors. While the latecomer Get the Flick continues tilting at windmills, the rest of the list will be painfully familiar to all. Since most of us who have a few small problems with Bush and co have decided it is pointless to continue, it seems it has become a thread for like-thinking backslappers. I would have thought that some of the more intelligent of the usual suspects would have recognised that by now and become a little embarrassed, but no, they just keep growling away at Get the Flick.

Ho-hum.

brickhistory
8th Sep 2008, 13:37
I wouldn't, of course, dare mention this in the American elections thread lest I be told my position was unwelcome as a foreigner.


Which would be why most of the US posters wouldn't dream of imparting our opinion on the UK's government and social philosophy. You see, we have manners.

That or maybe we just don't care.


It's an interesting exercise to click on the number under "Replies" in that thread and have a look at the top ten contributors. While the latecomer Get the Flick continues tilting at windmills, the rest of the list will be painfully familiar to all. Since most of us who have a few small problems with Bush and co have decided it is pointless to continue, it seems it has become a thread for like-thinking backslappers.

So you ran away instead of standing your ground. Many's the thread where I or 'one of your usual suspects' are the only ones defending a point. But we stand our ground. GTF is hanging in there, perhaps he could use a wingman or two. But you've chosen to leave the field (metaphor mixing acknowledged).

As for your Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac jibe (interesting how you turn this UK-centric thread into yet another US-bashing opportunity. Sometimes, it's not about us.), I am not conversant with the facts or the economic theories to contribute anything intelligent to the topic, so I don't.

But feel free to. Be sure and cover up warm now, don't want you to get the flu from our cold.

But, hopefully, this thread will return to the topic and not about you.

Binoculars
8th Sep 2008, 13:51
That or maybe we just don't care.

Maybe, but it only took you to 23 minutes to respond. Why am I not surprised? Do you have a permanent search engine set for your perceptions of America-bashing?

However I'm thrilled to learn there is a subject you admit you're not an expert in, particularly when your beloved free market theories are threatened with embarrassment when a Republican government leaps to the rescue of two failed companies.

I don't run away from arguments or debates if I sense there is somebody receiving as well as transmitting. Your American Presidential thread has descended into a schoolyard gang of backslappers beating up the only kid on the playground who could be bothered anymore listening to your one-sided polemic. A bit embarrassing that he's American but there has to be one somewhere. If you wear him down think of the lovely time you'll all be able to have together in your own little mutual admiration society.

frostbite
8th Sep 2008, 15:47
"Blair, at the top of that list saddens me"


Me too.

Shows how short people's memories really are.

Effluent Man
8th Sep 2008, 16:15
Churchill didn't take us out of a war,he kept us in it until we got enough help to win it.Had the parameters been drawn at 1939 then I would have switched 1 and 2. But Churchill for various reasons wasn't as good a leader in peacetime as he was in war.Given the hand he was dealt the argument could be made for moving Attlee up.

I am sorry Blair upsets so many people but my feeling is that history will judge him better at a distance.For my own part I would see him back in office now and would vote for him again without hesitation.I say this as a militant atheist.Brown should take heed,you have to spin it to win it.Pragmatism is everything in modern politics.
I honestly cannot see what Cameron can bring to the table that Blair has not already delivered.He means well, a sort of Blair Lite.

VinRouge
8th Sep 2008, 16:33
how can you admire a man that plunged this country into so much debt? that sold our nation over to the EU? EVERYTHING labour have done over the past 11 years had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the wellbeing of the nation state, but to maintain its hold on power. That thought makes me feel physically sick. they have no morals whatsoever. The man is frankly evil in my view.

A man that patently lied to the nation because of his belief in god and executed our armed forces against the wishes of the nation?

How the hell can you put maggie below that lowlife turd? Maggie wrote to the families of every single forces family of those killed in the Falklands. Trust me tone has yet to attend a repatriation.

ChrisLKKB
8th Sep 2008, 16:48
I'm another who is saddened to see Blair rated at number one. I fear for the future of this country if there are people in the UK who think he is anything other than a self serving, war mongering liar :(

For all Thatcher is accused or guilty of she acted in a way that she considered to be for the good of this country, which is something Blair could never say with hand on heart. He should be below her on the table.

mr fish
8th Sep 2008, 16:50
to return to the start of the thread, i have never used a 'nail bar' and starbucks coffee tastes like s:mad:t.:ok:

Krystal n chips
8th Sep 2008, 17:59
VR,

My congratulations on a truly wonderful piece of nostalgic rhetoric....a most entertaining read I have to say.....if one is interested in reading core value (Con) servative policies that is.....and so very educational as well.

I was truly impressed by your detailed grasp of industrial economics with regard to "the regions" as we who live North of the fabled M25 are often referred to.......now, if you can spare just a few moments, please sire ( sorry, there is no fore-lock tugging smilie available here ) may I suggest you read....although possibly not quite comprehend I agree...this little article about one region being a drain on the State....it's not too painful I assure you.

http://www.manchester2002-uk.com/busness/trafford-park.html

This is just one small example of the "drain" you mentioned....there are plenty of others should you care to do some basic research....which is highly unlikely of course.

By the way, one final question.......what is your preferred marching song ?...the aviation adage "never assume...always check" being relevant here. :E

Wedge
8th Sep 2008, 19:07
For all Thatcher is accused or guilty of she acted in a way that she considered to be for the good of this country, which is something Blair could never say with hand on heart. He should be below her on the table.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, Hitler acted in a way that he considered to be for the good of his country. It's a non-argument. For all Blair's faults, and there were many, he truly did believe he was doing the right thing. His hubristic approach to Iraq and his arrogant refusal to believe all those who said he was doing the wrong thing (not many of those on these pages, I seem to remember) was based in his absolute belief that he was 'doing the right thing'. He was wrong on Iraq, of course.

I would not deny that Thatcher inherited a very poor economy and a country with an uncertain future and a major identity crisis, which was the product of a long period of Britain's decline as an international economic and political power, and not the result of any one government's policies. However the policies which she put in place created social exclusion, a massively increased wealth gap, prosperity for a select group in the south and poverty for the rest of the nation. She was very far from being Britain's saviour. And yet, none of NuLabour's policies were designed to reverse the ideological shift to the right which she was responsible for. That's really why I can't understand 'Tory' disaffection with Labour. They're just Tories by another name (and I speak as a Labour voter).

By and large, socialists are the products of their fathers - by their being nonexistent, underachievers or bullying. How else could you explain the desire to control the lives of others, than to have had a ghastly childhood?

That is one of the most ludicrous assertions completely unsupported by evidence that I have ever read on these pages. There are no doubt some Socialists who have had troubled upbringings and problems with their fathers, but it would be equally true to suggest that anyone with strong political views is likely to have been influenced by the parents to some degree.

"By and large, right wingers are the products of their fathers - by their being non-existent, underachievers or bullying. How else could you explain their lack of compassion or humanity, than to have had a ghastly childhood?"

That would be the equal and opposite statement, which is no more supported by evidence than your assertion.

brickhistory
8th Sep 2008, 20:25
Maybe, but it only took you to 23 minutes to respond. Why am I not surprised? Do you have a permanent search engine set for your perceptions of America-bashing?


binos, you give yourself far too much credit.

The timing was purely coincidental. My 0837 post was merely me grazing on pprune before starting my work for 'the man.'

While I don't much like your vinegary for no apparent reason posts, I don't spend my time playing 'whackabino.'

Seldomfitforpurpose
8th Sep 2008, 20:41
"I don't spend my time playing 'whackabino.'"

Maybe not playing that particular game but with 11 posts so far today and all in the same, and now very familiar vein maybe Bino has a point............and is this chap "the man" fully aware of your time spent on here when you tell us you should be working :rolleyes:

brickhistory
8th Sep 2008, 20:59
Maybe not playing that particular game but with 11 posts so far today and all in the same, and now very familiar vein maybe Bino has a point...........

Ah, checking up on me. A true Labo(u)rite. Well done. :ok:




Yet bino gets a pass from you on the related posts? I see.


Not that there's anything wrong with that...

ChrisLKKB
8th Sep 2008, 21:03
Wedge;
Just to clarify, my post was intended to refer solely to their motives behind their policies and not the policies themselves or their achievements or lack of. May be Blair did listen to the voices in his head in deciding to go to war or then again may be he did it to add to his legacy.

Effluent Man
9th Sep 2008, 09:41
As regards Blair's foreign policy I would contend that Britain since the war has been unable to sustain any kind of unilateral policy for a variety of reasons.Dean Acheson observed that we had lost an empire and not found a role and that was an astute observation.Given that situation we had three options,we could not have a policy and just become an offshore Switzerland.Not a bad one with hindsight.The other options were alignment with the US or with Europe. Well,for better or worse we chose the former.

That being the case we were more or less forced to support US policy whether we liked it or not.This we proceeded to do through Korea,The Cold War,Vietnam, The USSR/Mujahadeen,Libya,and now Iraq and Afghanistan.What I find most difficult to take is the Tory intellectual dishonesty in maintaining a pretence that a Tory government would have behaved differently over the past ten years.Just what would little Hague have done?

As regards Thatcher I agree the economy was in a mess but the way she tackled it with Monetarism and crackpot theories from Milton Friedman and the Chicago Business School was a failure that decimated our industry even further.

Let us remember that in early 1982 she was as bad in the polls as Brown is now.When the Falklands came along she welcomed it with open arms and milked it shamefully for electoral gain.Otherwise David Owen would have been PM with a landslide as Labour's Worzel Gummage was hardly a serious threat.

For my own part I say let's have Blair back.Cameron for all his protestations and hoodie-hugging is still an Old Etonian Hooray Henry.

Avitor
9th Sep 2008, 09:56
"For my own part I say let's have Blair back"....Effluent Man.
==============================================
My feelings about Blair is that he was more interested in Blair and Mrs Blair than Britain. Be that as it may, You will, more than likely see your man during 2009 making a come back.

He did not propose the position of a permanent President of the EU for nothing. He had himself in mind.

From that perch, he could wreak far more damage on Britain than he has previously achieved.

At the moment, he is head down, he is a long term thinker.

After the elections, the US may not be as welcoming as it was to him under Bush. We shall see.

Roland Pulfrew
9th Sep 2008, 10:02
I can't believe that anyone is naive enough to have Blair ahead of Churchill. I cannot believe that anyone would even think, let alone state, that Callaghan, Wilson and Heath were good leaders. Short memories! Remember the power of the unions? Nationalisation? The three day week? 8 hour planned power cuts?

At least Mrs T had the balls to wrest power away from the unions. Tough love and nasty medicine I am afraid, and that's what its going to take to get us over the last 11 years of misrule from ZaNu Liarbour. IMHO, I think Bliar did nothing but destroy almost everything that was great about this country. As for the buffoon Guppy Brown :ugh:!!!

Lon More
9th Sep 2008, 11:28
Vin Rouge Come o -admit it's a wind-up.


EVERYTHING labour have done over the past 11 years had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the wellbeing of the nation state, but to maintain its hold on power.
Maggie wrote to the families of every single forces family of those killed in the Falklands.
Considering the Falklands was largely about future oil rights and an excercise to keep her and friends in power she should have got down on her scabby knees and kissed their feet.

If she hadn't sacked all the coal miners, we would have seen huge sums of public cash now compensating the coal miners due to the numerous health problems generated from such unclean working practises. Oh, in years to come, with global oil running out, UK coal may provide the saviour to the UK economy that will be required as a result of pressure on energy supplies
Northerners don't particularly like facing up to the truth, that they are a net burden on the state,

You don't know much about coal mining do you? Once a pit is abandoned it's lost. It'll fill with water fairly rapidly and the roads will collapse making any attempt at opening it again prohibitively expensive. Where do you think your unclean working practises" originated? My grandfather was blacklisted for many years for agitating for pit-head showers. The cost of providing them ate into the pit owners profits. Did your High Tory pit owners provide any help to those injured in their employ? 99% didn't
Where would the coal come from BTW; certainly not the Kent coal field? But I suppose those of us from North of Watford would have to be happy going back underground with a candle and a shovel in order to keep you in the style St. Hilda intended.


"Ganna fook thasin, laddie"

Effluent Man
9th Sep 2008, 12:04
You have to hand it to her,after 18 years out of office her power to divide is undiminished.

Lon More
9th Sep 2008, 12:37
.... and I never said maggie was two-faced. if she was, she wouldn't be wearing the one she's got.

Mr Grimsdale
9th Sep 2008, 13:15
Quote:
I wouldn't, of course, dare mention this in the American elections thread lest I be told my position was unwelcome as a foreigner.
Which would be why most of the US posters wouldn't dream of imparting our opinion on the UK's government and social philosophy. You see, we have manners.

That or maybe we just don't care.

*******************
Except the original poster was from Australia and not the UK.:=

airship
9th Sep 2008, 14:15
I was both a Conservative voter and Daily Telegraph reader in my early 20s, much to the dismay of my fellow house-sharers. If truth be known, I bought the DT because of the cryptic crossword and because I thought that (the much bigger paper) offered 'better value for money' compared to the tabloids...?! I'm not 100% certain of this either, but when I first met the ex. Queen's Messenger who owned the property, it might have been at lunchtime when I might have had a DT under my arm as we shook hands. Whatever, it helped (us all) get that delightful house which came with a beautiful garden (and gardener)... :ok:

Sort of lost interest in Maggie and her ilk afterwards, especially after having been made redundunt twice in the early '80s after which I left the UK for good basically in 1985. However, I can still recall how her then Minister of Agriculture John Gummer fed a hamburger to his 4 year old daughter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/369625.stm) during the BSE crisis... :} Fast-forward to 2008 when it was finally admitted that Lady Thatcher was and had been suffering from dementia for some period. I remain ignorant whether there are any substantial links between dementia, Alzheimer's disease, BSE, CJD or whatever. But it sort of reminded me of the old saying that 'the crows come home to roost'...

Which party is more worthy of our trust...? I'd suggest the following:

The Conservatives have never relinquished their roots even as they've had to adapt their basic messege 'of the privileged few charitably helping everyone else along' in order to attract even more of the 'blue collar' voters who would like to consider themselves as wearing 'white collars'. Compared to Labour, who have indeed greatly distanced themselves from their own roots. They both prefer to 'fight' over this relatively-neutral middle ground even as the Conservatives hold true to their roots and Labour distances themselves even further from their own. Of course, the main reason behind all this is that all the 'blue collar' workers who once knew perfectly well in which camp they belonged no longer live in council housing, but have bought their own properties. They've aspired to something greater but still not quite acquired the wherewithal to be permanently admitted into the Conservative club, yet acquired sufficient assets to be considered middle-class in the Labour camp. Thanks mainly to cheap credit and mortgages...?!

If one might express oneself as a Jedi: Beware of being mislead! It's not the Jedi alone who with a simple wave of the wrist or some other equally simple method, entice you into believing whatever they wish you to. Look deeply into your souls, ask whether you're blue collar, white collar or other (turn off the 42" Plasma TV whilst you do this), you will hear the answer: there is another (party)...?! ;) :} :sad:

Sir George Cayley
9th Sep 2008, 17:07
Sorry I'm late, I've not been well.:O

Just a pointette about voting. As I understand it we vote at General Elections (& By Elections) for our choosen prospective Paliamentary Candidate. The political party garnering the most elected MPs gets to be "in power" whilst the rest are in "opposition"

Nowhere in that basic tenet are we in any way voting for a certain Prime Minister; the elected MPs do that, allegedly.

Tactical voting has robbed constituencies of good local MPs for local issues for too many years; it should not go on.

Proportional Representation has its supporters, but I favour a two tier voting system. One vote for the candidate you want in your area and a second vote for the Party you want to govern the country. Oh, and compulsory voting for all with defaulters named, shamed and fined.:ok:

I've voted Lid Dem for 20 years and Lib before that, with one exception when the Labour MP locally was clearly a man of honour and dedication who fought unfailingly for a ban on hunting with hounds.

Politics, hey what goes around comes around - it's life.

Sir George Cayley

Wiley
9th Sep 2008, 17:33
So, Sir George... with your plan, you can have a majority of MPs from one Party sitting in the House, and the other Party, with fewer MPs, thanks to your second vote, running the guvvim'nt?

Have I got it right?

six-sixty
9th Sep 2008, 19:36
Someone once said it doesn't matter who you vote for - the government always get in.

Spot on I reckon.

BOFH
9th Sep 2008, 23:29
Wedge
That is one of the most ludicrous assertions completely unsupported by evidence that I have ever read on these pages.[/I]
Glad to be of service.
There are no doubt some Socialists who have had troubled upbringings and problems with their fathers, but it would be equally true to suggest that anyone with strong political views is likely to have been influenced by the parents to some degree.

These aren't the 'Socialists' who go along to those Fabian Society soirees. These are are underclasses, pinned down by a lack of family structure, emboldened by society's ineptitude in encouraging them to better themselves or enrich their lives - other than through Argos. They will either not vote, or will vote Labour exclusively throughout their lives.

In the meantime, I am amazed that this: YouTube - Gordon Brown Downfall - The Prequel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMi776jah1w)
hasn't been mentioned yet. If you can speak German, turn the sound down a bit and just watch the screen. The language is offensive - be warned.

BOFH

Effluent Man
10th Sep 2008, 15:54
It's always necessary for a political party to acknowledge the change in the make up of the electorate and the effects that this has on their voting intentions.

When my father went out to vote Labour it was as a member of a definable social group,the working class. Their aspirations and interests were quite clearly different from those who made up the middle and upper classes.

Modern British society,and yes Mrs.T there is such a thing,comprises a section of people,possibly 20%, who are culturally working class but have large disposable incomes,most of which appears to be spent on bling of some sort or another,because that is what makes them feel worthwhile.Their allegiance in political terms is notably fickle,tending to put their crosses where they perceive the best return is.

It is obviously no use trying to appeal to these voters in terms of class consciousness because they don't see themselves as belonging to a class.This has led to British politics being unpredictable,apart from the tendency to swing wildly from one party which they perceive as having conned them,to another,which the media tells them will be whiter than white.

All politicians,and I would include Hitler and Stalin in this,do what they think is best for their people.It is just in these,and many other cases,their judgment is clearly lacking.

Binoculars
10th Sep 2008, 16:18
Effluent Man, you are a bitter and twisted individual of the sort rarely found on these pages.

If you think your carefully elucidated and thoughtful embrace of both sides of politics will achieve anything here, you are sadly misled and this thread is doomed. But I'd like to buy you a drink.

I had been wondering for a while if there was anybody here who wasn't hidebound by party politics. I think I'd like to buy you a drink.

Did I say that already?

Effluent Man
11th Sep 2008, 09:19
You did say that Binos,and were it not for the fact that there are 12000 or so miles of sky(positively dripping with dusky-hued gentleman armed with explosive soft drinks)between us I would be only too pleased to accept.

Strangely in 14 years in local politics the entrenched positions found on here were not at all evident.In fact I once went for dinner with a rival candidate before we went to the count,we remain friends.

Avitor
11th Sep 2008, 09:38
It is not raw politics but the politics of envy that decides who are friends or enemies.

Effluent Man
11th Sep 2008, 09:54
I could understand that argument in certain circumstances but as has been bemoaned by many Blair pursued a pretty free market economic policy and has already been castigated for a foreign policy in line with the US.

Given these central planks of policy then it really comes down to the fact that his tenancy of No 10 upset people per se.Maybe it was foxhunting,I don't know.It's difficult to see any other area that might generate such hatred.

...unless of course it was the fact that he destroyed the Tory party and thrashed three consecutive leaders, causing them to eventually select a leader that 90% of the rank and file despise as much as him?

Avitor
11th Sep 2008, 10:39
I don't accept that Blair destroyed anything, unless it was Britain. The conservatives, in my opinion, were destroyed by John Major and his obsession with the EU (and Edwina Curry) I mention that so as to highlight the complacency that surrounded the conservatives around the time Blair was spouting his false rhetoric which needed no firm commitment from him. Indeed, his policies and actions after he was elected, were as far from his promises and bullsh1t as the two poles of planet earth are from each other.

Parapunter
11th Sep 2008, 11:25
I thnk that History thus far is unkind to Major. I've stuck up for him twice now, so I'd better have a word with myself, but the Tory's I believe would have imploded whoever was at the tiller during that period.

shedhead
11th Sep 2008, 12:38
I would agree with para here especially in terms of NI and the peace process-BUT when the Tory leadership contest was running at the time the phrase that kept being repeated was "we must have a new leader in the best interests of the party" Not the country - the party! still leaves a bitter taste after all this time.
Me, I do not have any party affiliations even though my Father (a Scottish miner) was a life long Labour voter but having to go down the pit at fourteen so they could afford to feed the family does that to you! and as for the original post, well, rarely do you see such an outpouring of spiteful venom.Maybe just maybe a lot of people who supported Blair did so because they had become sick and tired of the tories and the self serving attitude they displayed when they were in power.Still lets not be bitter eh?

Effluent Man
11th Sep 2008, 13:22
I think Binos made the point that I wasn't posting in favour of Arthur Scargill or The Militant Tendency.My aim wasn't to buoy up some Trotskyist group undermining the fabric of society,it was just an attempt at a little even handedness.

Major wasn't a bad man,the sort of chap you might share a pint with and discuss the test match scores. Of all the PM's in my original list only Thatcher and the current incumbent had aspirations way beyond their abilities.As regards the EU,well my view on that is that having regarded it as some sort of third class compartment for Johnnie Foreigner we gave away by default our right to be at the vanguard and then joined a quarter of a century later.

But really it comes down to the fact that Britain could never be a stand alone power after 1945.The Commonwealth didn't really want us and neither did the US.So unfortunately it was Europe or nothing.I can hear the howls of "nothing" now,but I have my doubts that it would have worked.Without the economic benefits of the EU I think we might have been at best a Turkey. (No pun intended,ok maybe it was)

CATIII-NDB
11th Sep 2008, 13:39
I feel the hand of History but its not on my shoulder - When I think of the Statues lining the amphetheatre of the Circus of the absurd that is politics -Bush/Rumsfelt/BlairBrown/Straw/Hoon/Putin/Last Kg of Scotland Et Al. Think of the philosophy that guides these numtys.(Power , Power & More Power)

One People - One Relm - One leader. (and our lives.)

My heart leaps in my breast."I can walk again mein Fuhrer " (from Dr Strangelove)

CAT III. (Poor bloody infantry - Ive just dissapeared up my own rhetoric).

Doors to Automatic
14th Sep 2008, 02:57
How on EARTH can you put Blair above Churchill? UGH!!!! :eek: