Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Falklands votes in sovereignty referendum rejected by Argentina

STANLEY, Falkland Islands | Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:12am GMT

(Reuters) - Residents of the Falkland Islands started voting on Sunday in a sovereignty referendum that seeks to counter Argentina's increasingly assertive claim over the British-ruled territory.

Diplomatic tension between Britain and Argentina has flared up after more than three decades since they went to war over the South Atlantic archipelago, and that has unsettled some of the roughly 2,500 islanders.

With patriotic feelings running high, Falklands-born and long-term residents will cast ballots in the two-day referendum in which they will be asked whether they want to stay a British Overseas Territory.

Officials are expected to announce the result at about 8 p.m. (2300 GMT) after polls close on Monday.

An overwhelming "yes" vote is likely, prompting Argentina to dismiss the referendum as a meaningless publicity stunt.

A high turnout is expected, however, as islanders embrace it as a chance to make their voices heard.

Manuel,

"Mighty oaks from little acorns grow"

=================

There seems many who have been writing similarly.

Perhaps, you don't like it because you have backed a bunch of losers:

Austerity is not a panacea:

Read wider afield.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/austerity-economics-doesnt-work.html

-----------------

Dreams.

It seems that the subject of your cartoon rose above those around him and had quite a large following.

Interesting pick of cartoons.

How would you like this one for your mother or nanny:

Manuel,

Another interesting article, which may be to long for your span of concentration:

but supports your position,

"David Cameron may last even as he leads his MPs to their doom
Tory backbenchers fear a repeat of 1997 at the next election. But that doesn't mean any of them have the courage to act on it "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/10/david-cameron-backbenchers-fear-courage


It even has an image of the your dear leader, which you could print out as and icon.

(Mind there seems to be a Welsh Dragon behind him.

Fred
The article in the New Yorker should appeal to you, as the writer is from the left and is a Keynsian believer plus he is a democrat. I have read two of his books and he spouts the Keynesian nonsense that requires further borrowing and spending when you are in debt. He complained in the article about Osborne using pre-krynsian economics. In reality it is post-keynsian economics, which came in when borrow and spend was found to be suicidal in times of recession.

There is no point in even reading the Guardian article. At least quote from a newspaper and not a left wing comic.

fred - at least i shall VOTE, unlike prigs like you ..... if the present crew get voted out, as today's polls would heavily indicate, then so be it .... but never forget that old truism - a week in politics is a very long time ...... you will no doubt remember that MT was the most unpopular PM of all time, and then along comes the FI conflict, and lo and behold, she goes from zero to hero o'night and is voted back in (with a landslide i think)

Manuel,

I hope the present incumbent of no 10 doesn't try and resort to another pointless war to bolster his flagging causes.

I think he has blown his chances and seems to be digging deeper and deeper into trouble.

(I wouldn't suggest as a Blowfly, but some might!)

so are you suggesting that MT "created" the FI conflict?
now that really does NOT stand up even to a blind man's scrutiny

that MT stuck to her guns(!!) and refused to accept some the appeasement policy suggested by the americans has some validity .... of course, had she done so, then you would now be saying with some justification that (like you) she had no spine, and FI would now or in the future become an Argentinian possession

bambi, on the other hand, lied through his back teeth when involving UK in the iraq debacle

What about Brown's war with the bigoted women? That didn't help him much.

HMRC - a bunch of total and utter incompetents
to get a rest from (fos)fred's "left wing lunacy" .....
the layman is meant to be able to get professional and trustworthy advice from HMRC ...... you have to be joking, though fortunately, i have a genuine professional handling this situation!!!

in a nutshell .....
1) HMRC (VAT) do not even know their own guidelines with regard to partnerships becoming sole trader on the death of a partner
2) having been pestering HMRC since april 2011, they suddenly told "my" professional, that i had been pigeon-holed as a "missing trader" despite the fact that they had been writing to me within the last few weeks

the situation is not particularly complex, and certainly not one that would not be regularly encountered by HMRC ...... and to think that we (the taxpayer) is paying these idiots and giving them a lovely cotton-wooled pension scheme etc etc, yet neither we nor any gov't seem to have any control over them at all

Liam Fox - drop protected spending for schools, aid and the NHS.
clearly dr fox has some very strange ideas which, if adopted, (even) i would have difficulty in stomaching

overseas aid is a particularly interesting subject
the general public (the great unwashed!) only see this as a bottomless pit of free hand-outs ..... of course, leaving any "moral obligations" to one side, it is nothing like that simple
aid will often have a link with trade agreements or even high value infrastructure contracts and the like ...... the sub-text of political and regional influence and the like, is far too complex for me, though it is very real even if sometimes quite subtle

cutting spending on schools and the nhs - othjer than some of the rafts of middle (or did i mean muddle?) management - would of course be absolute suicide

Manuel,

I did not suggest that Thatcher "created" the conflict, that problem was due to her “predecessors” both in the UK and Argentina, but did not think she should have resorted to "murder", when there were other solutions to the "problem". (Read your history.)

However, I think she rejoiced in her actions, and grabbed at the political boost that she thought it would give her and of course her "place in history".

As far as Blair is concerned, I think if you read back to postings on the preparation for the Iraqi war, which was supported by the con party under the "leadership" of Ian Duncan Smith, I condemned the policy and thought Blair was lying between his teeth and that the “dossiers” were fabrications.

I respected Robin Cook’s position.

I think Cameron and Blair are base their success on PR and are both shallow and egocentric and more concerned with the present than the future.

Also, forecasted what has become the outcome of that war, and to a lesser degree the action of the war in Afghanistan.

Of course the more barmy R/wingers and little Englanders and pro-war element on some of these threads, informed me I was writing rubbish.

=======

Shortcut.

Also, my feelings are that increasing austerity leads to diminished “production” and “less investment” in “new plant” with increasing efficiency of “industry”. Look at reasons for the economic success of Germany against Britain after WW2.

Also, in recent times, look at industries in the aftermath of recent wars in smaller countries with lay up or destruction of their economies followed by lack of investment. The increasing economic "failure" of the UK is developing many similarities.

The resolutions for the problems are becoming more difficult.

did not think she should have resorted to "murder"
fred to justify his statement
other solutions presented - e.g. by usa - were based on appeasement = handing over FI to argentina .... no doubt you thought that a spiffing idea



supported by the con party under the "leadership" of Ian Duncan Smith
because of the evidence presented to parliament i think you'll find if you read your history

on balance, i came to the conclusion that we should indeed join with the invasion of iraq, solely because we were assured by bambi that there really were WMDs that could be deployed very quickly .... certainly hussain had a clear record of having and using chemivcal weapons, so the story of WMDs was certainly not far-fetched

on what grounds did you (fred), think we should not support the invasion?
my guess it was nothing at all to do with WMDs but solely to do with the legality - a tenable argument

Manuel,

Sid,

Should have read the dossiers and formed his own "opinion".

Perhaps, he did.

----------------

Look at the Belgrano Files and the list of killed and wounded.

Look at the cost of that propaganda war and the international political opinion of other countries of its legality.


------

With the contraction of the defence budget, how much a year/month/week does the "defence" of "Falkland Isles" cost?

Not sure where the murder comes from.

it is very convenient to forget that this was armed conflict
the argentinians were clearly not surrendering and the belgrano left untouched, would have remained a potential threat


how much a year/month/week does the "defence" of "Falkland Isles" cost? .... and what is the relevance of that piece of crap? ....


Should have read the dossiers and formed his own "opinion". .... relating to ADS i assume ..... i am almost certain that the dossiers were not open for scrutiny, or at least, only those that had been doctored to suit by bambi and his henchmen

IDS, had meetings, discussions and talks before parliament' s decision and said he supported the actions being taken.

Granted he is easy to dupe. But mind you, he was elected by the tories to be their leader. (Best of a b. lot. 8-))

---------------------------------

I thought it would have been more sensible to negotiate before the Argentinian invasion a new treaty.

I thought the Argentinians had some reasons in their position, but not their actions.

My reasoning was based on the costs to the ongoing costs UK and the fact we were not an ongoing military power. Ie. punching above our weight.


------------

Have a look at the cost of vanity

"Renewed conflict in the Falkland Islands could cost the UK more than just international sympathy.

Over at the Independent, Andy McSmith takes a look at the financial cost of the UK's protection of the over 2,000 British citizens on the island (who have repeatedly confirmed they wish to remain British citizens and not become part of Argentina).

McSmith reports that the military in the area will cost the UK £61 million ($96 million) in 2012-13, which is expected to increase by £2 million ($3.14 million) each year.

While in the grandiose world of military budgets that might not be that much, when you look at the cost per British citizen on the Falklands, it works out at more than a whopping £20,000 or $31,000 (and that is only the defense budget, other costs will be born on other budgets).


Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-14/europe/31057552_1_defense-budget-uk-falklands#ixzz2NEYO0FnY

----------

Skinny,

Is that Moses parting of the murky waters.

(fos)fred speaks as the acronym "fos" indicates ..... as i have written before, he is just a 3rd rate armchair critic of anything and everything this (conservative) gov't does or has done, but on his own admission, wears his "refuse to vote" stance as a badge of honour ..... i guess appeasement has similar values