Gemmel Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370134/Fury-Portugal-bailout-grows-Tories-blame-Darlings-EU-deal-6bn-bill.html?ito=feeds-newsxml Incompetence or Sabotage? When 400,000 people march about the cuts, their anger shoudln't be directed at Cameron, it should be directed at the people who seem to have tried thier hardest to kill this Country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 "Mr Osborne told MPs last month the deal was done on the basis of the EU’s qualified majority voting, which meant Britain could not have vetoed it without the support of other countries." So without the French and the Germans, AD could do nothing. And from the comments under the article : "There are many good and able lawyers in the FO and the Exchequer. They will know that In English law "he who adopts consents" (see Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan and Leakey v National Trust)) Therefore, unless the LibDemCon Conspiracy reverses the agreement entered into by Darling, which they are legally entitled to do, they will be adopting and consenting to it. Criticism of Darling will therefore be no more than a smoke screen to hide the LibDemCon's part in the great EU conspiracy. I agree with Douglas Carswells - it would be very surprising indeed if Darling agreed to the EU bailout in the interregnum knowing that in reality he had no political mandate and was merely continuing in office as a trustee custodian. The constitutional convention is that in such circumstances outgoing ministers either do nothing or follow the position of the incoming government if they have one. I strongly suspect that Osborne's position at the time was rather more equivocal than he is now claiming." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 A slightly less hysterical view http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12848566 and it seems like the Irish need more help http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/ireland-business-blog-with-lisa-ocarroll/2011/mar/28/irish-banks-need-another-bailout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370134/Fury-Portugal-bailout-grows-Tories-blame-Darlings-EU-deal-6bn-bill.html?ito=feeds-newsxml Incompetence or Sabotage? When 400,000 people march about the cuts, their anger shoudln't be directed at Cameron, it should be directed at the people who seem to have tried thier hardest to kill this Country. The Banks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 The Banks? Fortnum & Masons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 The scum Labour Party went on a massive spending spree just before the election to deliberately f/ck the country up even more and make it more difficult for the Conservatives. How anyone can ever vote for them again is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 The scum Labour Party went on a massive spending spree just before the election to deliberately f/ck the country up even more and make it more difficult for the Conservatives. How anyone can ever vote for them again is beyond me. Stop calling them 'scum' please. How anyone can vote for any of them ever again is beyond me fwiw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 Or maybe Labour spent more to encourage economic growth - as in the US at the moment. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b39b937a-56e2-11e0-9c5c-00144feab49a.html#axzz1Htz8OhOU The US economy is growing again rapidly, that's because Obama isn't making huge cuts like the coalition at the moment (although some cuts will be implemented in the next few years), but spending wisely and investing in the right places to encourage economic growth. It shows what a sensible spending plan can do, because even though prices are going up in the US for things like oil and food, their economy is still growing by between 2-5% quarter on quarter, whereas ours is growing by less than 1%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 The scum Labour Party went on a massive spending spree just before the election to deliberately f/ck the country up even more and make it more difficult for the Conservatives. How anyone can ever vote for them again is beyond me. They would have looked stupid had they won ! And remember, the CONservatives didn't win either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 Stop calling them 'scum' please. How anyone can vote for any of them ever again is beyond me fwiw. Sometimes I wonder why we vote for any of them. They are all self serving dissemblers, whatever colour rosette they might wear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGTL Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 Or maybe Labour spent more to encourage economic growth - as in the US at the moment. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b39b937a-56e2-11e0-9c5c-00144feab49a.html#axzz1Htz8OhOU The US economy is growing again rapidly, that's because Obama isn't making huge cuts like the coalition, but spending wisely and investing in the right places to encourage economic growth. It shows what a sensible spending plan can do, because even though prices are going up in the US for things like oil and food, their economy is still growing by between 2-5% quarter on quarter, whereas ours is growing by less than 1%. Exactly, the Tories thought Christmas had come early when they got into power and realised they could cut absolutely everything pretty much as deep as they wanted, without making themselves responsible for it. And when it all goes tits up, they won't be able to blame the weather again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 It's dawning on me that we are not actually that hard up are we. It's one big money-go-round and as long as we adjust our aspirations a little we should be fine. Obviously I will still fight my own particular corner in an altruistic way but at the end of the day that's as much as I can offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 Or maybe Labour spent more to encourage economic growth - as in the US at the moment. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b39b937a-56e2-11e0-9c5c-00144feab49a.html#axzz1Htz8OhOU The US economy is growing again rapidly, that's because Obama isn't making huge cuts like the coalition at the moment (although some cuts will be implemented in the next few years), but spending wisely and investing in the right places to encourage economic growth. It shows what a sensible spending plan can do, because even though prices are going up in the US for things like oil and food, their economy is still growing by between 2-5% quarter on quarter, whereas ours is growing by less than 1%. Au contraire, the US economy is heading for the rocks, even bigger rocks if you get my meaning. If the Fed keep on printing meaningless dollar bills, just pieces of worthless paper, it will all end in tears. Sooner rather than later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370134/Fury-Portugal-bailout-grows-Tories-blame-Darlings-EU-deal-6bn-bill.html?ito=feeds-newsxml Incompetence or Sabotage? When 400,000 people march about the cuts, their anger shoudln't be directed at Cameron, it should be directed at the people who seem to have tried thier hardest to kill this Country. the bankers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 The scum Labour Party went on a massive spending spree just before the election to deliberately f/ck the country up even more and make it more difficult for the Conservatives. How anyone can ever vote for them again is beyond me. well you are a die hard facist and hate anything which helps working people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 well you are a die hard facist and hate anything which helps working people On the contrary I support all measures to help working people which is why I hate Labour with a passion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 The scum Labour Party went on a massive spending spree just before the election to deliberately f/ck the country up even more and make it more difficult for the Conservatives. How anyone can ever vote for them again is beyond me. 1) Another term for the Labour government was a distinct possibility right up to the hung' situation that we have now - to make that statement shows a reprehensible lack of understanding of the situation. 2) The fact that the current incumbents couldn't muster a majority without the coalition despite Labour's biggest mistake (Iraq) would indicate that the country had little faith in the alternative. It gives me no great pleasure to view that that lack of faith appears not to have been misplaced. 3) If ever you want an example of a party becoming (nearly...note no overall majority) electable again take a look back at the previous Tory administration...granted it took thirteen years to shed the spectre of Thatcher, Hamilton, Major etc but time and the Iraq situation made it possible...would you care to put money on the current incarnation getting a second term? I certainly wouldn't...the power-hungry Libs have blown it for the next century or so and there is not a cat's chance in hell that Cameron & co will get there on their own. History is a powerful pointer...we have to hope that this lot don't syphon too much away from the society we have come to expect from education, health etc. You don't have to look far to see that the income streams from gas, water, telephones, oil etc aren't going towards the public pocket any more. You really need to stop spouting platitudes when you have no real understanding of the issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 When it comes to Europe all 3 major parties are as bad as each other, I've no doubt the Tories or the Coalition would also have signed this deal. They all want to be "good Europeans". This is a drop in the ocean compared to the money we have given Europe for 40 years , money that has been used to invest and grow the economys of Ireland and Portugal. Countries who have lived above their means as a result of this money and now need more of our money to bail them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaford Saint Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 The scum Labour Party went on a massive spending spree just before the election to deliberately f/ck the country up even more and make it more difficult for the Conservatives. How anyone can ever vote for them again is beyond me. Why anyone votes at all is beyond me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 1) spectre of Thatcher, Hamilton, Major Hamilton? Neil? or maybe you mean Christine. Is that the best you can do? Mor dangerous of course than the spectres of Gordon 'prudent' Brown or Tony 'puppy dog' Blair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 Hamilton? Neil? or maybe you mean Christine. Is that the best you can do? Mor dangerous of course than the spectres of Gordon 'prudent' Brown or Tony 'puppy dog' Blair. Or you could address the points? Blair was re-elected three times, twice with three figure majorities? I'm not an apologist for Blair or Brown...until you start to draw the comparisons that Dune has done and then they tend to make their own case. I am merely pointing out that the Tories made themselves as unelectable as any party in living memory and it took three full terms of a Labour administration, the last includsing possibly the most unpopular war ever to get themselves even in to a 'hung' position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 Or you could address the points? Blair was re-elected three times, twice with three figure majorities? Thatcher was elected 3 times, and then The Tories once again afetr she's gone. So how does election wins, back up your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 Thatcher was elected 3 times, and then The Tories once again afetr she's gone. So how does election wins, back up your point? My point was that 'unelectable' administrations can 'ever get people to vote for them again' to quote the point I was answering - you could point to the previous Labour administration as against the Thatcher/Major period with nearly equal validity...they were in a little longer but the Blair/Brown period ended with a hung parliament and were not defeated by one party with an overall majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 My point was that 'unelectable' administrations can 'ever get people to vote for them again' to quote the point I was answering - you could point to the previous Labour administration as against the Thatcher/Major period with nearly equal validity...they were in a little longer but the Blair/Brown period ended with a hung parliament and were not defeated by one party with an overall majority. The Blair era ended with a hung parliament (labour kicked out), the Thatcher era ended with another Tory election win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 The Blair era ended with a hung parliament (labour kicked out), the Thatcher era ended with another Tory election win. So Major being kicked out by a 150 seat majority equates to Brown/Blair 'losing' to a coalition of two parties (one more desperate for power than the other, granted) neither of whom had a mandate on their own then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 (edited) So Major being kicked out by a 150 seat majority equates to Brown/Blair 'losing' to a coalition of two parties (one more desperate for power than the other, granted) neither of whom had a mandate on their own then? I still dont get it? Are you saying that after 3 election wins to get kicked out in a hung parliament, is a better result than to win a 4th term. Edited 28 March, 2011 by Lord Duckhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 I remember posting on this forum two or three years ago that the Tories would probably not form a government in my lifetime. Well, so far, and in spite of the huge unpopularity of the previous administration over the Iraq war and the parlous financial problems (caused by others but, hey, we always blame the governments), the Tories STILL couldn't command a majority. And I'm willing to bet that, in 4 years' time, they still won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 I remember posting on this forum two or three years ago that the Tories would probably not form a government in my lifetime. Well, so far, and in spite of the huge unpopularity of the previous administration over the Iraq war and the parlous financial problems (caused by others but, hey, we always blame the governments), the Tories STILL couldn't command a majority. In 2005, Tony B-liar / Labour received 9,552,436 votes (35% = 355 seats) In 2010, David Cameron / Conservatives received 10,703,754 votes (36% = 306 seats) When you say "majority" I assume you mean 'number of seats' rather than 'actual human beings'...? Now....if only we had a voting system that had the same number of people per constituency rather than being weighted in favour of a certain red party....hmmm.... ;-) ;-) ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 In 2005, Tony B-liar / Labour received 9,552,436 votes (35% = 355 seats) In 2010, David Cameron / Conservatives received 10,703,754 votes (36% = 306 seats) When you say "majority" I assume you mean 'number of seats' rather than 'actual human beings'...? Now....if only we had a voting system that had the same number of people per constituency rather than being weighted in favour of a certain red party....hmmm.... ;-) ;-) ;-) how would BTF feel if the Tories championed PR back in 05 to get a sniff of power...im sure she would have been all for it then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 ...or, put another way... c.1.2million more people in the country wanted David Cameron as Prime Minister in 2010 than wanted Tony B-liar in 2005. (roughly 3 times the number of people who turned up for the "no cuts" rally) Make of that what you will... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 It's all about proportion though - voter turnout was higher last year than in 2005 (65.1% compared to 61.4%). More people also wanted Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown as PM as well, because more people voted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 how would BTF feel if the Tories championed PR back in 05 to get a sniff of power...im sure she would have been all for it then Then you'd be wrong. I'm against AV and undecided about PR. Anyway, the Tories will never champion any alternative to FPTT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 It's all about proportion though - voter turnout was higher last year than in 2005 (65.1% compared to 61.4%). More people also wanted Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown as PM as well, because more people voted. was there an option for clegg/brown..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 It's all about proportion though - voter turnout was higher last year than in 2005 (65.1% compared to 61.4%). More people also wanted Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown as PM as well, because more people voted. Sssshhhh....it's more fun if people only see the facts I quote out of context.... ;-) And, yet, Cameron still got a higher percentage of the increased vote pool than B-liar, yet got significantly less seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 Then you'd be wrong. I'm against AV and undecided about PR. Anyway, the Tories will never champion any alternative to FPTT Indeed. They advocate a modified/fairer FPTT (sic) system whereby the constituencies are evenly spread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 Indeed. They advocate a modified/fairer FPTT (sic) system whereby the consistencies are evenly spread. I like it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 I like it! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 I still dont get it? Are you saying that after 3 election wins to get kicked out in a hung parliament, is a better result than to win a 4th term. The comparison I was making answered the original point rather than the one you are now making. You reinforce my contention that no matter how unpopular an ousted party can be there, in a democracy, is always a way back in. It will be interesting to see what happens with a few by-elections and some boundary changes how 'tight' the coalition remains. It will be very interesting too to see how the parties view FPTP, AV & PR as the term of this parliament nears the end....I predict some tyre smoking u-turns! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 28 March, 2011 Share Posted 28 March, 2011 (edited) Now....if only we had a voting system that had the same number of people per constituency rather than being weighted in favour of a certain red party....hmmm.... ;-) ;-) ;-) That only applies to England, what proportion of votes do the Tories get in the provinces ? Labour are always bouyed by the numbers of MPs returned by the Scots and the Welsh, and no amount of gerrymandering will alter that. It also presupposes that voter apathy doesn't rear it's head. Edited 28 March, 2011 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilton Saint Posted 29 March, 2011 Share Posted 29 March, 2011 well you are a die hard facist and hate anything which helps working people facist? biased against faces? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 29 March, 2011 Share Posted 29 March, 2011 On the contrary I support all measures to help working people which is why I hate Labour with a passion. you are a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 30 March, 2011 Share Posted 30 March, 2011 (caused by others but, hey, we always blame the governments), the Tories STILL couldn't command a majority. . many times you have said that but as you know it is not the case. When Blair came to power he took the powers away from the Boe to regulate and the excesses started. Many were calling for the nonsense of the easy lending to be stopped but brown did nothing to stop it. I couldn't and many who were warning couldn't . We had to watch the train crash happen and nobody was doing anything in Government to stop it. The bankers knew what was happening and in their disgusting self interest keep the deals going and saw the bonuses come in. The main men in this legal fraud made their families secure for generations at the cost of us all, the people who should have protected us from that YOUR Labour party did nothing, as they were on their social experiment spending more on the welfare system than we can afford. My grandchildren will be paying for your parties excesses. If it is so easy to provide schools hospitals free health to all and sundry (from wherever in the world who drops in) why don't the rest of the world do it?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 30 March, 2011 Share Posted 30 March, 2011 (edited) When 400,000 people march about the cuts, their anger shoudln't be directed at Cameron, it should be directed at the people who seem to have tried thier hardest to kill this Country. Very deliberate and pre-meditated sabotage. Blair, Brown, Harman and Darling deliberately butt-f*cked and trashed the UK for generations to come. They oversaw the biggest immigration flow and expansion of the public sector the country has ever known in order to provide a captive electorate voting base for them. They changed the country forever. They also knew that the succeeding government would have an absolute nightmare of a job on their hands as a result of their actions, and they bet that it would make them so unpopular that Labour would be re-elected at the end of their term or when the coalition collapsed. We've lost our navy and RAF and our world standing over this. This is the second time in 50 yrs that Labour have wrecked the country and left the mess to a Tory government to clear up, with such drastic measures that the pain will be felt for generations. My main worry now, having been stuck with a Tory Government, similar to the last one that destroyed our manufacturing base and set us on the path to dependency on Banks and services is that Call Me Dave is no Margaret Thatcher. At least she stood up to the unions. I have always voted Labour, but no more. NEVER. Edited 30 March, 2011 by alpine_saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 30 March, 2011 Share Posted 30 March, 2011 Very deliberate and pre-meditated sabotage. Blair, Brown, Harman and Darling deliberately butt-f*cked and trashed the UK for generations to come. . I recall Mandelson sanctioned something just as he was leaving office. At present i cant remember quite what, but it was another cost he knew that someone else would have ot clear up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now