Hi all In light of the recent resignation of Gordon Brown i thought it was fitting to create a thread where people can discuss what they thought of ole' grumpy britches and what they think David Cameron will be like. Feel free to post your comments.
Previous experience of Tory governments, it'll be a good time to be rich but god help you if you're poor. Moriquendi
I wonder what will be done about the Digital Economy Act Bill now, Lib Dems were quite against how it was rushed through parliament (their words) while I thought it went extremely slowly but nothing was really discussed in a serious way. It would seem like the Convervatives would only benefit from it though whether it be backhanders or interests in the companies wanting to push the bill. EDIT: I wonder if anyone is taking bets on how long until Lib Dems/Conservatives fall out.
There goes the last PM of this country not to worry about looks and bloody style over substance. History will be kinder to Brown and even though he helped cause the deficit in this country, he'd have got more credit for coming up with a solution - any solution - had he put his hands up and not banged on about the "global" bloody crisis all the time, America didn't tell us to sell that gold and do other things that slowed down our re-entry from recession to last place. Outside of the economy which was his baby, Brown was never going to be able to clear up 10 years of Blair's mess that he financed, with three years in power, snap election or not - not calling it was the off-the-cliff moment for Gordon, shame, as I might have even voted for him, I was 50-50 until I was in the election booth in 2005 so to be rid of Blair and have a supposed new beginning, I would have definitely gone with Brown over whoever was in charge by 2007 - Cameron was just Tory leader no.4 in x years by then. Well we've got change, it's what people said they wanted, I'm just glad it's over with in less than a week, I'm more optimistic for the future since I nearly got back into work with a day's notice today, but to be honest I've gone through two other recessions before this, part study and part working in the case of the 90s double-dip, and whoever's in power doesn't really factor into your daily life when you're fighting to find or keep your job. I didn't vote Conservative to now turn round and say I don't trust the guy not to give him a chance now he's been in the building for two bloody hours, we'll have the first 100 days and then the first year and we'll see what's going on coalition and economy-wise. So we'll see what happens once the Cabinet's been formed out of the two parties and we get the new Opposition leader, and only then will you get your answer about whether everything will be fine.
And he's got an OWW as his deputy, its all good (yes I am a toff that goes to westminster ) EDIT: Or in 2 weeks went :/
Tbh i didn't really look into the policys at all, seeing as i can't vote. But I did notice his head, why so bloody shiny?!?!?!!?
What are you on about? Backhanders? The Tories record on sleaze and corruption is better than any other parties' recent records. As for the DE Bill, the conservatives recognised the need for some legislation, but disagreed with many specific aspects of the bill, and they promised to do what they could to 'correct' the bill in the first term of parliament - with the Lib Dems on side, there is an even greater chance of the legislature seeing reason. However, if you freetards are expecting a green light to carry on pirating, you are going to sadly be disappointed.
And for the record, the sleazy Tories all lost their shirts (Hamilton) or went to prison (Archer, Aitken etc) - the sleazy Labour people just kept getting job after job after job, bouncing back like squash balls. The worst expense fraudsters of both parties are going to court now. Anyone from any party can be corrupted, the issue is the degree and the punishment.
To be fair, it was mainly Blair and Mandelson that were teflon-coated. I guess Stephen Byers & co haven't really been punished for prostituting themselves to big business for 30 pieces of silver either. Keith Vaz and David Blunkett (after the 2nd incident) lost their ministerial positions. Eliott Morley and some of his expense-fiddling colleagues were deselected. Derek Draper, Charlie Whelan and Damian McBride all faced the chop once the press got on their respective cases. Jacqui Smith survived but only long enough to be ousted at the election. Same with Shahid Malik. The two peers who were offering a cosy cash-for-influence scam in the Lords were suspended for 6 months (a bit of a let-off IMHO). Wendy Alexander resigned after we found out about here dodgy donations, so she didn't quite get away with it either. Hain resigned after his dodgy donation scandal too. Lord Levy was arrested for the cash-for-honours scheme, but unfortunately it didn't quite make it to court, so I guess he is another who dodged the bullets. Peter Wyatt, the Labour Party General Secretary resigned after being complicit in hiding the origin of donations to the party - other were suspected of involvement, but the matter was dropped. So, in general, the majority of Labour's many sinners faced their comeuppance sooner or later, albeit most getting off very lightly.
Like that was not happening under Tony Blair?!? Seriously, all those Brits agonising about the UK relinquishing power to the EU... while the US is totally gimping their country with Tony as its pimp. Say what you will about Thatcher (and I do), but that didn't happen on her watch. We'll see. A Tory-Lib Dem coalition can't do any worse than New Labour did.
The rich/poor divide may have got larger but it would have been larger still under a tory government. Thatcher was more interested in the "special relationship" than any other PM till Blair as far as I'm concerned, I'm much less bothered about increased EU integration. New labour didn't do a great job but they did increase investment in the NHS and education, brought devolution to Wales and Scotland, presided over the Northern Ireland peace process that normalised things considerably over there. None of those things would have happened to the same extent under the tories as I see it. The tory attitude to the EU is also not in Britains best interests as I see it, in my opinion the EU is the only counterweight to US foreign policy. Moriquendi
Moriquendi, you seem to be pulling facts out of your arse. Under what pre-tenses can you say it WOULD have gotten larger under Conservative government.
I'm presenting my opinion through comments as the OP invited, you don't have to like it, it's a free country. Historically the tory party has represented the interests of the rich and big business while HISTORICALLY labour has represented the interests of the working class, new labour may have changed that but it doesn't mean the the tories have changed their tune. Moriquendi
No, you're allowed an opinion. Let's rephrase your comment to make it an opinion. Here's the original Stating it WOULD have been larger states that it would have deffinitely happened Now let's rephrase it to make it an opinion. There's a difference between stating opinion, and then stating facts from your backside.
How can anyone make a statement that isn't their opinion? I could have made that statement and backed it up with all manner of research and references but all it would have meant was that in my opinion the research showed that a tory government would have resulted in an increased rich/poor divide. Given that we didn't have a tory government (and if we had had one we wouldn't have have a labour government) there can never be any proof that a tory government would have resulted in an increased rich/poor divide, only opinion. Trying to take anybody's statement as fact is a mistake, no action that excludes the alternative action can ever be proved to have one effect over the alternative action, you cannot step into the same river twice as Heraclitus says. Moriquendi
No, the way you worded your statement means it would have happened. As I said, there is a difference of opinion, instead of fact. The way you worded your statement implied that it deffinitely would have happened, instead of it may have happened.
