Heartland

DeWinter wrote:

boudicca wrote: He has been prime minister for just two years. When he was merely Chancellor was it not Blair who had to bear the ultimate responsibility for what was going on?

"Merely" the second most powerful position in British politics?

I did think twice about using that word. I think you know what I mean... he was still answerable to Blair, and as I said, had he launched a single-handed crusade to clean things up during those years, would he not have been accused of having ideas above his station?

DeWinter wrote:So no, he's not the best man. Despite thinking the LibD's soppy, Vince Cable has proved a far greater level of economic sense than Brown on his worst day.

I think you'll find his name is prefixed with "Media Darling" these days ... or it should be. Having said that, he'd be better at the helm than that Nick Clegg chump - still won't vote for them again unless they bring Chas back, or install someone better.

I just find it frustrating and depressing that the Conservative Party is doing better in the wake of the economic crisis, when they are the party of de-regulation and unchecked capitalism. Many amongst them are believers that the market regulates itself. Before the credit crunch, they were arguing for an even "lighter touch", and in spite of Cameron's empty rhetoric, I suspect that's the way the vast majority of them swing.

boudicca wrote:Sadly, it would appear Labour losing is a foregone conclusion...

Don't be so sure. Their winning in 1992 was also a foregone conclusion but it didn't actually come to pass.

boudicca wrote: I did think twice about using that word. I think you know what I mean... he was still answerable to Blair, and as I said, had he launched a single-handed crusade to clean things up during those years, would he not have been accused of having ideas above his station?

Maybe I guess. But he was well aware of whats going on, and for the past two years there's no excuse for him. He's even skated pretty close to the rails himself on the expenses issue. Labour made hay during the dying days of the Major administration with the whole "sleaze" thing, and the trouble with that is, if you aren't "whiter than white" (remember that catchphrase?:P ) it looks even worse when you're caught bending. Labour took the moral high ground and got exposed. A crook is bad enough, but a crook and a hypocrite is worse, I suppose.

boudicca wrote: I think you'll find his name is prefixed with "Media Darling" these days ... or it should be. Having said that, he'd be better at the helm than that Nick Clegg chump - still won't vote for them again unless they bring Chas back, or install someone better.

I just find it frustrating and depressing that the Conservative Party is doing better in the wake of the economic crisis, when they are the party of de-regulation and unchecked capitalism. Many amongst them are believers that the market regulates itself. Before the credit crunch, they were arguing for an even "lighter touch", and in spite of Cameron's empty rhetoric, I suspect that's the way the vast majority of them swing.

Yeah, I'm a little sick of Saint Vince too! I can look on this forum and find a post where I called Brown's economy "smoke and mirrors", but it doesn't mean I should be Chancellor..
Clegg has never had a "real" job as any of us would understand it, and as such I have trouble believing he can relate to any of the common issues. Charlie Kennedy may have been more likable, but the same applies to him too.
Since you're up in Scotland you could vote SNP. I'm curious what people think of the independence issue after HBOS/RBS going base over apex. Does that mean Scotland would take over all the debt since there's no reason England should accept any of that, or would England own Scotlands national bank? Neither sounds too tempting.

boudicca wrote:
He has been prime minister for just two years. When he was merely Chancellor was it not Blair who had to bear the ultimate responsibility for what was going on?

I do actually have to take issue with this.
Fairy snuff. Tony Bleeeuugh may have been responsible for the improprieties, but Golden let them continue for 2 years.
I think if anyone in any job let something that dodgy roll on for 2 years, they'd be in trouble too (& rightly so).

Yeah but you're just wrong

boudicca wrote:Yeah but you're just wrong

Fantastic argument there
You got me pegged.

I'll argue with you tomorrow, Batman

I really hoped this was some sort of joke, but apparently not...

While I'm willing to concede there's not much choice in regards to who occupies No 10, let's not forget the critical issue here - Gordon Brown is an unelected Prime Minister. He lacked the balls to call an election after ousting Blair and has continued to lack the courage of his convictions to put himself and his party on the line ever since.
As chancellor, Brown's policies are largely responsible for the banks needing bailed out in the first place, so he gets no points from me on that one.
Having grown up with the nightmare that was Thatcher's Britain, it has doubly pained me to live through the rebranded continuation of her policies as practised by New Labour.
At least under Thatcher you could actually get a grant to pay for University!
I remember a time when Labour actually represented the left of centre.
Now the choice between Tory and Labour seems to be a choice between good hair and a nice smile.
The only difference I can see the General Election bringing is that Cameron will probably be up front about telling you he's out to fuck you, while Brown tells you he loves you and then fucks you!

So having said all that, I nominate Ray Mears as the best man for the job - at least that way a few of us might survive the upcoming holocaust and financial melt down.

I've always had a thing for Mandy Prince of Darkness...