Well today there was a riot in Greece and the parliament building attacked by demonstrators. Not fun. Germany are talking of this being crunch time for them in Europe. Portugal and Spain are deemed at risk to do a "Greece" so EU could really be in a bad way soon. Hung parliament may drag us more into that than away from it. Oh, and Clegg's missus is Spainish. Can you imagine the pillow talk? To help Spain, £1 billion a shag dear or £50 billion a BJ! They are married after all so he will go for the more expensive option! IMHO of course......
Uk general election may 6th
- Thread starter Keith1
- Start date
Heard this one last week, but was a bit slow to post (+wasn't sure whether to post here or in the jokes section, so will probabaly do both).
Was does BIGOT stand for?
Brown Is Going On Thursday!
Was does BIGOT stand for?
Brown Is Going On Thursday!
I bloody well hope so... :thumbsup:
All I can say is get out and Vote.
Dave
Dave
Anyone else find it really strange how everyone agrees with the things that have been written here, and when you talk to friends and colleagues they all think the same, and yet the Tories are going to struggle to get a majority. Who exactly is voting for Labour? Look at the map of the UK and its 75% blue and yet the constituencies are arranged in such a way as to bias towards Labour.
Anyone who wants to be voted for is probably a little shit, but, in reality for me a change of government will at the very least give us a honeymoon period where the City and business feels a little more positive and we will all get a slight break from the dire feelings of impending doom. Its quite clear to me that these guys are on the wrong path and almost any other approach has to be better than carrtying on with what we know isn't working.
They criticise the Tories for wanting to cut NI, but, the way i figure it every penny the government lets us have back they'll recoup in some other way. If i pay a pound less and use it to buy petrol they get best part of 80p, the petrol company get the rest which pays to employ someone, or increases their profits which get corporation taxed etc etc. The government must get most of the money back, but, in the mean time several peoples lives have been enriched in some small way.
D.
Anyone who wants to be voted for is probably a little shit, but, in reality for me a change of government will at the very least give us a honeymoon period where the City and business feels a little more positive and we will all get a slight break from the dire feelings of impending doom. Its quite clear to me that these guys are on the wrong path and almost any other approach has to be better than carrtying on with what we know isn't working.
They criticise the Tories for wanting to cut NI, but, the way i figure it every penny the government lets us have back they'll recoup in some other way. If i pay a pound less and use it to buy petrol they get best part of 80p, the petrol company get the rest which pays to employ someone, or increases their profits which get corporation taxed etc etc. The government must get most of the money back, but, in the mean time several peoples lives have been enriched in some small way.
D.
Would it be cynical to suggest that the economics of 40 ownership might suggest a blue leaning? I have noticed a similar partisanship in the USA brigade. But moving onto to more cynical things......
I thought that our votes cast were secret. I beleive they are not. Look at your polling card and it is numbered. Top right corner if I remember rightly. You hand it in to get your voting slip and the voting slip has a number on it. The numbers are noted by the chap at the desk and off you go to vote. Now it won't be simple but it theory you could match up an actual vote to a specific individual. That smells to me unless someone can explain it away?
I thought that our votes cast were secret. I beleive they are not. Look at your polling card and it is numbered. Top right corner if I remember rightly. You hand it in to get your voting slip and the voting slip has a number on it. The numbers are noted by the chap at the desk and off you go to vote. Now it won't be simple but it theory you could match up an actual vote to a specific individual. That smells to me unless someone can explain it away?
That would all depend on what happens to the ballot paper after the Counting. My experience is that they are kept in locked containers in case of a dispute and necessary for a recount and then destroyed. I have been a Teller in the past and the supervision is very close and would be impossible for an individual to interfere with the boxes in anyway as they are resealed. To co-opt an entire polling station team would be a conspiracy beyond feasibility and to interfere with the boxes for the whole ward impossible. The weakest link is when they are transported for destruction but then to "steal" any personal data on a widespread basis that would be meaningful, i.e. on a regional or national basis and unbelievabley difficult task for what purpose? Even if you did get hold of the ballot papers it would only have a number and you would have to acquire the specific Ward Register to cross reference the info and that is definitely not in the public domain and there are thousands of lists.
As you say, you can safely predict who votes what just by looking at them, what job they have and where they live.
On a similar subject before any deal is done between the parties, I have been quite appalled at the low level of understanding of the political process by people phoning in to various shows this morning commenting on the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in. And in wondering about that I came to the inescapable conclusion that the new influx of young voters have been so ill educated about the principles of democracy that this ignorance has seriously affected the election's outcome. Which kind of begs the question (if you accept this thesis) as to why the man who has been unelected TWICE should allowed to stay anywhere near the seat of Govt as his main proposal originally was to focus on"education" as a priority.
But hey ho, we now live in a world of instant politics and reality TV debates which aren't even popular as was amptly demonstrated by the ludicrous fact that more people watched some spurious talent show than the televised debates.
Which further reinforces the view that the People deserve what they get.
Be Tuesday now!
Hmm, yeah - how did they get so many votes?
I'm still hoping they get the gallows out to give us a real hung parliament.
I'm still hoping they get the gallows out to give us a real hung parliament.
Maybe this should have gone into the Jokes Section:evil::evil::evil::evil:
The Most Expensive Disasters in History<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>
At - 11. Titanic - $150 Million
The sinking of the Titanic is possibly the most famous accident in the world. But it doesn't quite make the list of top 10 most expensive, and is here because of its historical prominence.
On April 15, 1912, the Titanic sank on its maiden voyage and was considered to be the most luxurious ocean liner ever built.
Over 1,500 people lost their lives when the ship ran into an iceberg and sunk in frigid waters. The ship cost $7 million to build ($150 million in today's dollars).
10. Tanker Truck vs Bridge - $358 Million
On August 26, 2004, a car collided with a tanker truck containing 32,000 liters of fuel on the Wiehltal Bridge in Germany . The tanker crashed through the guardrail and fell 90 feet off the A4 Autobahn resulting in a huge explosion and fire which destroyed the load-bearing ability of the bridge. Temporary repairs cost $40 million and the cost to replace the bridge is estimated at $318 Million.
9. MetroLink Crash - $500 Million
On September 12, 2008, in what was one of the worst train crashes in California history, 25 people were killed when a Metrolink commuter train crashed head-on into a Union Pacific freight train in Los Angeles. It is thought that the Metrolink train may have run through a red signal while the conductor was busy text messaging. Wrongful death lawsuits are expected to cause $500 million in losses for Metrolink.
8. B-2 Bomber Crash - $1.4 Billion
Here we have our first billion dollar accident (and we're only #7 on the list). This B-2 stealth bomber crashed shortly after taking off from an air base in Guam on February 23, 2008. Investigators blamed distorted data in the flight control computers caused by moisture in the system.
This resulted in the aircraft making a sudden nose-up move which made the B-2 stall and crash. This was 1 of only 21 ever built and was the most expensive aviation accident in history. Both pilots were able to eject to safety.
7. Exxon Valdez - $2.5 Billion
The Exxon Valdez oil spill was not a large one in relation to the world's biggest oil spills, but it was a costly one due to the remote location of Prince William Sound (accessible only by helicopter and boat). On March 24, 1989, 10.8 million gallons of oil was spilled when the ship's master, Joseph Hazelwood, left the controls and the ship crashed into a Reef. The cleanup cost Exxon $2.5 billion.
6. Piper Alpha Oil Rig - $3.4 Billion
The world's worst off-shore oil disaster. At one time, it was the world's single largest oil producer, spewing out 31,000 barrels of oil per day.
On July 6, 1988, as part of routine maintenance, technicians removed and checked safety valves which were essential in preventing dangerous build-up of liquid gas. 100 identical safety valves were checked. Unfortunately, the technicians made a mistake and forgot to replace one of them. At 10 PM that same night, a technician pressed a start button for the liquid gas pumps and the world's most expensive oil rig accident was set in motion.
Within 2 hours, the 300 foot platform was engulfed in flames. It eventually collapsed, killing 167 workers and resulting in $3.4 Billion in damages.
5. Challenger Explosion - $5.5 Billion
The Space Shuttle Challenger was destroyed 73 seconds after takeoff on January 28, 1986 due to a faulty O-ring. It failed to seal one of the joints, allowing pressurized gas to reach the outside. This in turn caused the external tank to dump its payload of liquid hydrogen causing a massive explosion. The cost of replacing the Space Shuttle was $2 billion in 1986 ($4.5 billion in today's dollars).
The cost of investigation, problem correction, and replacement of lost equipment cost $450 million from 1986-1987 ($1 Billion in today's dollars).
4. Prestige Oil Spill - $12 Billion
On November 13, 2002, the Prestige oil tanker was carrying 77,000 tons of heavy fuel oil when one of its twelve tanks burst during a storm off Galicia, Spain. Fearing that the ship would sink, the captain called for help from Spanish rescue workers, expecting them to take the ship into harbour. However, pressure from local authorities forced the captain to steer the ship away from the coast. The captain tried to get help from the French and Portuguese authorities, but they too ordered the ship away from their shores. The storm eventually took its toll on the ship resulting in the tanker splitting in half and releasing 20 million gallons oil into the sea.
According to a report by the Pontevedra Economist Board, the total cleanup cost $12 billion.
3. Space Shuttle Columbia - $13 Billion
The Space Shuttle Columbia was the first space-worthy shuttle in NASA's orbital fleet. It was destroyed during re-entry over Texas on February 1, 2003 after a hole was punctured in one of the wings during launch 16 days earlier. The original cost of the shuttle was $2 Billion in 1978. That comes out to $6.3 Billion in today's dollars. $500 million was spent on the investigation, making it the costliest aircraft accident investigation in history. The search and recovery of debris cost $300 million.
In the end, the total cost of the accident (not including replacement of the shuttle) came out to $13 Billion according to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
2. Chernobyl - $200 Billion
On April 26, 1986, the world witnessed the costliest accident in history. The Chernobyl disaster has been called the biggest socio-economic catastrophe in peacetime history. 50% of the area of Ukraine is in some way contaminated. Over 200,000 people had to be evacuated and resettled while 1.7 million people were directly affected by the disaster. The death toll attributed to Chernobyl, including people who died from cancer years later, is estimated at 125,000. The total costs including cleanup, resettlement, and compensation to victims has been estimated to be roughly $200 Billion. The cost of a new steel shelter for the Chernobyl nuclear plant will cost $2 billion alone. The accident was officially attributed to power plant operators who violated plant procedures and were ignorant of the safety requirements needed.
And now for Number 1....
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" oreferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><vath o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></vath><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype>
1. Gordon Brown - $300 Billion since he came to power
Since he came to power Gordon Brown has spent £300 Billion (c.$450 billion) with soaring public spending mainly wasted on inflation busting wage rises and non existent jobs, together with propping up the banks in the ailing economy which, let's not forget, he also presided over as Chancellor. He also managed to sell the bulk of the UK's gold reserves right at the bottom of the market. What an arrogant t*sser.
<v:shape style="WIDTH: 226.5pt; HEIGHT: 313.5pt" id=MA12.1273224349 alt="cid:825F60D8B03E41C3A4D938602D1A6860@whiteheada52c1" type="#_x0000_t75" o:spid="_x0000_i1036"> <v:imagedata o:href="cid:[email protected]" src="file:///C:\Users\ser\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image012.jpg"></v:imagedata></v:shape>
<o></o>
He’s the most expensive freeloader in British political history
The Most Expensive Disasters in History<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o><o
></o>At - 11. Titanic - $150 Million
The sinking of the Titanic is possibly the most famous accident in the world. But it doesn't quite make the list of top 10 most expensive, and is here because of its historical prominence.
On April 15, 1912, the Titanic sank on its maiden voyage and was considered to be the most luxurious ocean liner ever built.
Over 1,500 people lost their lives when the ship ran into an iceberg and sunk in frigid waters. The ship cost $7 million to build ($150 million in today's dollars).
10. Tanker Truck vs Bridge - $358 Million
On August 26, 2004, a car collided with a tanker truck containing 32,000 liters of fuel on the Wiehltal Bridge in Germany . The tanker crashed through the guardrail and fell 90 feet off the A4 Autobahn resulting in a huge explosion and fire which destroyed the load-bearing ability of the bridge. Temporary repairs cost $40 million and the cost to replace the bridge is estimated at $318 Million.
9. MetroLink Crash - $500 Million
On September 12, 2008, in what was one of the worst train crashes in California history, 25 people were killed when a Metrolink commuter train crashed head-on into a Union Pacific freight train in Los Angeles. It is thought that the Metrolink train may have run through a red signal while the conductor was busy text messaging. Wrongful death lawsuits are expected to cause $500 million in losses for Metrolink.
8. B-2 Bomber Crash - $1.4 Billion
Here we have our first billion dollar accident (and we're only #7 on the list). This B-2 stealth bomber crashed shortly after taking off from an air base in Guam on February 23, 2008. Investigators blamed distorted data in the flight control computers caused by moisture in the system.
This resulted in the aircraft making a sudden nose-up move which made the B-2 stall and crash. This was 1 of only 21 ever built and was the most expensive aviation accident in history. Both pilots were able to eject to safety.
7. Exxon Valdez - $2.5 Billion
The Exxon Valdez oil spill was not a large one in relation to the world's biggest oil spills, but it was a costly one due to the remote location of Prince William Sound (accessible only by helicopter and boat). On March 24, 1989, 10.8 million gallons of oil was spilled when the ship's master, Joseph Hazelwood, left the controls and the ship crashed into a Reef. The cleanup cost Exxon $2.5 billion.
6. Piper Alpha Oil Rig - $3.4 Billion
The world's worst off-shore oil disaster. At one time, it was the world's single largest oil producer, spewing out 31,000 barrels of oil per day.
On July 6, 1988, as part of routine maintenance, technicians removed and checked safety valves which were essential in preventing dangerous build-up of liquid gas. 100 identical safety valves were checked. Unfortunately, the technicians made a mistake and forgot to replace one of them. At 10 PM that same night, a technician pressed a start button for the liquid gas pumps and the world's most expensive oil rig accident was set in motion.
Within 2 hours, the 300 foot platform was engulfed in flames. It eventually collapsed, killing 167 workers and resulting in $3.4 Billion in damages.
5. Challenger Explosion - $5.5 Billion
The Space Shuttle Challenger was destroyed 73 seconds after takeoff on January 28, 1986 due to a faulty O-ring. It failed to seal one of the joints, allowing pressurized gas to reach the outside. This in turn caused the external tank to dump its payload of liquid hydrogen causing a massive explosion. The cost of replacing the Space Shuttle was $2 billion in 1986 ($4.5 billion in today's dollars).
The cost of investigation, problem correction, and replacement of lost equipment cost $450 million from 1986-1987 ($1 Billion in today's dollars).
4. Prestige Oil Spill - $12 Billion
On November 13, 2002, the Prestige oil tanker was carrying 77,000 tons of heavy fuel oil when one of its twelve tanks burst during a storm off Galicia, Spain. Fearing that the ship would sink, the captain called for help from Spanish rescue workers, expecting them to take the ship into harbour. However, pressure from local authorities forced the captain to steer the ship away from the coast. The captain tried to get help from the French and Portuguese authorities, but they too ordered the ship away from their shores. The storm eventually took its toll on the ship resulting in the tanker splitting in half and releasing 20 million gallons oil into the sea.
According to a report by the Pontevedra Economist Board, the total cleanup cost $12 billion.
3. Space Shuttle Columbia - $13 Billion
The Space Shuttle Columbia was the first space-worthy shuttle in NASA's orbital fleet. It was destroyed during re-entry over Texas on February 1, 2003 after a hole was punctured in one of the wings during launch 16 days earlier. The original cost of the shuttle was $2 Billion in 1978. That comes out to $6.3 Billion in today's dollars. $500 million was spent on the investigation, making it the costliest aircraft accident investigation in history. The search and recovery of debris cost $300 million.
In the end, the total cost of the accident (not including replacement of the shuttle) came out to $13 Billion according to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
2. Chernobyl - $200 Billion
On April 26, 1986, the world witnessed the costliest accident in history. The Chernobyl disaster has been called the biggest socio-economic catastrophe in peacetime history. 50% of the area of Ukraine is in some way contaminated. Over 200,000 people had to be evacuated and resettled while 1.7 million people were directly affected by the disaster. The death toll attributed to Chernobyl, including people who died from cancer years later, is estimated at 125,000. The total costs including cleanup, resettlement, and compensation to victims has been estimated to be roughly $200 Billion. The cost of a new steel shelter for the Chernobyl nuclear plant will cost $2 billion alone. The accident was officially attributed to power plant operators who violated plant procedures and were ignorant of the safety requirements needed.
And now for Number 1....
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" o
referrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><vath o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></vath><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype>1. Gordon Brown - $300 Billion since he came to power
Since he came to power Gordon Brown has spent £300 Billion (c.$450 billion) with soaring public spending mainly wasted on inflation busting wage rises and non existent jobs, together with propping up the banks in the ailing economy which, let's not forget, he also presided over as Chancellor. He also managed to sell the bulk of the UK's gold reserves right at the bottom of the market. What an arrogant t*sser.
<v:shape style="WIDTH: 226.5pt; HEIGHT: 313.5pt" id=MA12.1273224349 alt="cid:825F60D8B03E41C3A4D938602D1A6860@whiteheada52c1" type="#_x0000_t75" o:spid="_x0000_i1036"> <v:imagedata o:href="cid:[email protected]" src="file:///C:\Users\ser\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image012.jpg"></v:imagedata></v:shape>
<o
></o>He’s the most expensive freeloader in British political history
It is reported on FOX NEWS in the States that Gordon Brown will be stepping down in September. Hummmmm
He has committed to going but be realistic, this is the Labour party dangling a bit carrot to Clegg to allow Labour to stay in power even if shared power. And I hear Clegg is hanging on to get PR as part of any deal. My suspicion is that Tories won't give it but Labour may well. So much for everyone wanting to do what is in the best interests of the nation. Changes to our voting system, whilst needed, is more to do with parties gaining power in the future rather than sorting out the current financial mess. My own view is that the constituency boundaries nee to be altered to give the same population per MP seat and then stick with first past the post system. That way we should get genuine one vote per person yet still need a majority to govern. Otherwise we better get used to hung parliaments!
Ian Anderson
Lifetime Supporter
Seems like the UK Government is now just like McDonalds
No matter what you order you get Hashed Brown with it
Ian
No matter what you order you get Hashed Brown with it
Ian
Brett James-McCall
Moderator
Malc,
I think if Clegg et al don't make decision soon then they won't be 'acting in the national interest' anymore; even if they were in the first place. Personally, I don't like the way they are just talking about changing the way we vote. They should ask us the population whether we want a change.
Can someone correct me if I am wrong here, but doesn't the Libs want it so that you vote for the party and then they just assign the MP? Tom Bradby on ITV made a good point about this. As the oldest democratic system in the world there is a key point in the way that we vote. We vote for an individual in the constiuency and if they don't do the job right then you can effectively vote them out. The Libs wants would take this away, and also unless someone massively messed up create a forever hung parliment.
Further as Nick Robinson pointed out last night, I think they are starting to get carried away for a party that didn't get that many votes...
I think if Clegg et al don't make decision soon then they won't be 'acting in the national interest' anymore; even if they were in the first place. Personally, I don't like the way they are just talking about changing the way we vote. They should ask us the population whether we want a change.
Can someone correct me if I am wrong here, but doesn't the Libs want it so that you vote for the party and then they just assign the MP? Tom Bradby on ITV made a good point about this. As the oldest democratic system in the world there is a key point in the way that we vote. We vote for an individual in the constiuency and if they don't do the job right then you can effectively vote them out. The Libs wants would take this away, and also unless someone massively messed up create a forever hung parliment.
Further as Nick Robinson pointed out last night, I think they are starting to get carried away for a party that didn't get that many votes...
I understand PR to be, you get 36% of the vote you get 36% of the seats, however many seats there are. Who the MPs are, I don't know. So yes hung parliaments for a long time to come as the % at this election was something like 36/29/25 between the 3 main parties. But there is inequality in the current system too. If Labour had got 36% of the vote as per the tories, they would be back in with a majority. Tories needed 40% to achieve that. AV is a bit of a fudge hence not really a Lib Dem ideal. I can see why both Labour and Tories would accept it as it is unlikely to change the two main party strength in the country.
But as you state, all this provarication does hint at party bolstering and not behaving in the national best interests. My own take is that Labour are not announcing their candidates for leader so that it can be fudged behind the scenes as part of a deal with the Lib Dems.
By the way, AV is used by the Lib Dems and Labour to choose their leaders!
Lib Dems have some credible polices and some bad ones, IMHO, but if they fall for the Labour promises then they will have sold their soul and most of their credibility to me. It is in the tories party best interests for a Lib Dem Lab alliance as it will fail within 12 months and then allow tories to come back much more strongly than they already have done. But that would cause huge damage to the country during this recession hence they are saying they want the alliance and will concede X Y and Z in the national best inetrest. I suspect they are also playing a party game at some level but on the surface they are in a better position to play the national best interest card than any other party now.
Lib Dems just going into a meeting now which to me says we might be close to a conclusion to the wrangling.
All IMHO of course and a with damn big pinch of salt!
I am trying to decide if this is as "exciting" as when I had dinner with the chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee on the night "we" voted to go to war in Iraq. That night going in to the Commons, I was told by the police that if I went past their thin blue line and something kicked off (there were about 5000 protesters there that night and it was buzzing), they would not be coming in to get me! After dinner, coming out post vote it was deemed unsafe to exit via the public entrance so I had to leave via the Members entrance. At 10:30 just 30 mins after the vote. The journos were there waiting in droves and I got blinded by the flash photography. I had my brother in law beside me and being an eloquent fellow he went off and gave an interview, until he was sussed as not being an MP after all.
That controversy cost a lot of lives, this one will just cost a lot of money.
But as you state, all this provarication does hint at party bolstering and not behaving in the national best interests. My own take is that Labour are not announcing their candidates for leader so that it can be fudged behind the scenes as part of a deal with the Lib Dems.
By the way, AV is used by the Lib Dems and Labour to choose their leaders!
Lib Dems have some credible polices and some bad ones, IMHO, but if they fall for the Labour promises then they will have sold their soul and most of their credibility to me. It is in the tories party best interests for a Lib Dem Lab alliance as it will fail within 12 months and then allow tories to come back much more strongly than they already have done. But that would cause huge damage to the country during this recession hence they are saying they want the alliance and will concede X Y and Z in the national best inetrest. I suspect they are also playing a party game at some level but on the surface they are in a better position to play the national best interest card than any other party now.
Lib Dems just going into a meeting now which to me says we might be close to a conclusion to the wrangling.
All IMHO of course and a with damn big pinch of salt!
I am trying to decide if this is as "exciting" as when I had dinner with the chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee on the night "we" voted to go to war in Iraq. That night going in to the Commons, I was told by the police that if I went past their thin blue line and something kicked off (there were about 5000 protesters there that night and it was buzzing), they would not be coming in to get me! After dinner, coming out post vote it was deemed unsafe to exit via the public entrance so I had to leave via the Members entrance. At 10:30 just 30 mins after the vote. The journos were there waiting in droves and I got blinded by the flash photography. I had my brother in law beside me and being an eloquent fellow he went off and gave an interview, until he was sussed as not being an MP after all.
That controversy cost a lot of lives, this one will just cost a lot of money.
Last edited:
The BBC (god bless her) have done the decent things and shown the results of all the different voting systems based on the 2010 poll data.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8644480.stm
in all 5 cases, tories came out top....so i think the country has told spoken. if we wanted wanted the policies of a coalition of losers would we not have have voted them in in the first???
How damaging is the UK going to be in the international arena if we are run by a bunch of losers, thats what it will look like to johny foreigner and not some crazy plan for the greater good.
Brown announcing his step down is nothing but a cheap last ditch attempt to keep a lagging party in power, doesn't make us look good and neither does Clegg holding onto the spotlight for as long as possible.
We are in the 'Brown Stuff' (pun intended) country first should be priority not petty empire building.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8644480.stm
in all 5 cases, tories came out top....so i think the country has told spoken. if we wanted wanted the policies of a coalition of losers would we not have have voted them in in the first???
How damaging is the UK going to be in the international arena if we are run by a bunch of losers, thats what it will look like to johny foreigner and not some crazy plan for the greater good.
Brown announcing his step down is nothing but a cheap last ditch attempt to keep a lagging party in power, doesn't make us look good and neither does Clegg holding onto the spotlight for as long as possible.
We are in the 'Brown Stuff' (pun intended) country first should be priority not petty empire building.
Last edited:
