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.

How about adviser to the Greek governmemt on money matters?!

London Mayor Boris Johnson compared the new coalition to a "cross between a bulldog and a Chihuahua" and a "bright blue tropical fish with yellow dots".

He told Sky News: "I think actually that the British people in their brilliance and their imagination have come up with something potentially rather wonderful.

"They've taken the political palette of colours and they've mixed them. They didn't want pure Conservative, they certainly didn't want Gordon Brown. And they've got something new and different.

"They've created a mongrel breed. It's a kind of cross between a bulldog and a Chihuahua. And like all mongrel breeds I think it will have a great deal of hybrid vigour and strength."

He said he did not believe there would be infighting or bickering between the parties, adding: "There's huge pressure on the Lib Dems in the Cabinet, on the Tories in the Cabinet, on all of us to get together and sort it out.

"I think it's a robust and interesting new specimen. It's like a glorious new, bright blue tropical fish with yellow dots, and it might well survive for a very long time. It might be very popular and very successful."

I emailed the picture of Gordon to the UIniite union and to the Labour Party. They need something to laugh about.

H; You cruel bastard. Nice one.

This is the reply I have received so far

LOL

no-reply@new.labour.org.uk

Thank you for your message. It will be forwarded to the appropriate team at Labour to deal with your enquiry.

I think the difference between G Brown and Cameron are obvious.

Brown has principles and ideals, which he occasionally fails to live up to, and sometimes hasn't achieve, whereas the PR man Cameron is happy to jettison any principle or ideal he many have had, in order to get into power.

The latter has already torn up the promises in the tory manifestos and cheated his own party.

Hays, try as you like, you can not bring G Brown down to your level and what ever you say, or write, he is well respected in Europe and the rest of the , world.

Probably, he will be offered some position influential position in Europe.

Also, looking at the TV shots of his interaction with his wife and very happy children I think he has a lot of pleasures and enjoyment in his life.

I wonder why you have a need to be so malevolent, is it jealousy because he is successful and that you don't seem to be.

Can you finally tell us now Fred, what it is about Brown that has you talking like that about him. Elsewhere you seemed to imply that you were a recent convert to Labour. It's not wrong to have a hero, but you must have some reason for it. You seem to have him on a pedestal. He seems to have touched you in some way. Is it some particular policy, or do you know him or someone close to him?

Maybe Freddy and Gordon are secret shirt-lifters.

:o)

Lay off Fred for a second, I was trying to get a serious reply! There must be something that caused him to start voting labour and pick Gordon as hero.

anybody having trouble with Barclays stockbrokers online today ?

I agree with Fred.

Brown does have principles and ideals, and some of them are quite laudable, for example getting the G7 to cancel significant amounts of 3rd world debt. His big problem as far as I can tell is that he's blinkered and cannot see beyond his own 'utopian world' where that state is to be relied on for everything from cradle to grave.

My hope for Cameron's work is that he can engage with people, see where there's a solution and make sure it works, without tying it up in lots of red tape, rules and committees to make it work. He hasn't torn up his own hopes, but he's had to adapt to the new situation the voters have presented him. Brown wouldn't adapt, and I don't think that's acceptable when he got the lowest proportion of the vote. Politicians are there to serve the voters, not the other way round, and I think Brown forgot that.

Fred,

Although I said we would have to agree to disagree, I just can not allow your last post to go unanswered.

You say, Brown has principles and ideals, which he occasionally fails to live up to.

My view is that he had very few principles and ideals which he 'usually' failed to live up to. His main so called principal of putting the country before himself and his party, went completely out of the window when he tried to save his own and parties neck by not accepting what the voters wanted, IE Gordon Brown/Labour out of office.
As to being respected in Europe, I think he is looked at as someone who will always roll over and give in (the promised referendum, another of Browns shot down principles). And yes, I know Cameron also promised a referendum, so that is one principle he is equally guilty of failing, although the difference is when Brown became leader he promised said referendum, whereas at least with Cameron, he backed down via the last manifesto.
As to the world, I feel especially on immigration, Brown was at least behind closed doors, 'laughed' at.
Now if you want to talking about respect in Europe and the World, you only have to look at Margaret Thatcher, now she did have respect.

You say, Cameron is happy to jettison any principle or ideal he many have had, in order to get into power.

My view is that he is 'not' happy to jettison and principles or ideals to get into power. He only had three choices.

1 Allow the Liberals to form an alliance with Labour, which would be as discussed previously totally against democracy, IE the parties that came second and third becoming the ruling coalition party.

2 Forming a none total majority party, which apart from being almost impossible due to our system, would soon result in being outvoted on the majority of his parties manifesto.

3 Doing what he has done, re the Con/Lib alliance which means at least he can get most of the manifesto through. Yes there will be give and take, but on the main issue (the huge national debt) this is the best hope.

I did not want any sort of coalition, but thats what we have, so we should back it to give it a chance to work, 'FOR THE SAKE OF THE COUNTRY'

I only have 1 question. If you had been Cameron, 'what would you have done'.

Greek,

I don't think Cameron backed down as such on the issue of a referendum. It was simply a case that, with the Labour government having already signed the Lisbon Treaty, it was now a fait accompli and there was no longer anything to have a referendum on. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that we should have a referendum either on tearing up the agreement completely or leaving the EU altogether.

I think the majority of the population reluctantly accept that, although there are obviously some old stick-in-the-mud UKIP members who disagree.

Hi Hilary

I agree there would have been no point to hold a referendum at the time as you say, the treaty had been signed. The fact was he promised a referendum, even as happened it had been signed, He was more stupid to make such a promise than none principled in not holding one.

I do though think we should have a referendum on leaving the EU completely.

Sorry the above is a bit rushed, can't expand the above as busy for next few hours, getting ready or my long charity walk.

Greek

Seymour has answered on behalf of Fred for you Kayak 'His big problem as far as I can tell is that he's blinkered and cannot see beyond his own 'utopian world'.
The very same personality comes across.

Greek,

I hope, I would not have denigrated individuals and vociferously lied about the policies of other parties. (Later seemingly to introduce some of them.)

I would not have permitted, what I would consider corrupt funding from overseas, with its possible future consequences.

I would not have made knowing false promises, which I knew I couldn't fulfil (glaring NIC).

I would not have had a manifesto. which appeals to the greed of individuals and the "racial" bigotry of many.

(For many, immigrants means the blacks. blues or reds, but not Caucasians . The groups, who can be easily recognised and attention focussed upon as an excuse for failings in their own expectancies.) (The tories played this card as much as the BNP, but are already stumbling over the difficulties of devising any effective policies.)

If, I was Cameron and with the position that he had got himself into, I would have probably done a similar deal. But, thank god I am not.

If I was Clegg, I wouldn't have touched it with a barge pole.

If the politicians have a "social conscience" as you suggest, there is no reason why they could not have form a minority government. Or, at the very least, a temporary coalition of all parties for a two year period to address the immediate economic problems.

This would be to the benefit of the country at the present moment. With the present return of MPs, I would have had no objection to Cameron as PM, and a representative party balance in cabinet, with a "free" vote in the house.

If the above had been done, with restraint on all sides, it would have been possible to introduce legislation to address the economy and the "political reforms".

I think that there may have been general public support for this type of coalition, although there are many involve in tribal politics, who would raise their hands in horror. Some of those raised their voices and hands against a coalition government, spent their days after the election sucking up to the Liberals.

What I have written above is a simplification of what may have been possible.

The devil is in the detail.

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

Here is a challenge to you.

I think you are retired and probably about 10years younger than I am.

Reflect back to period before retirement from about 1997.

Has the standard of living of you and your children improved since that date?

Has the expectancies of the majority of people increased during that period?

Have they wished or demands being more often not been fulfil?

How many home improvements have you or they made?

Has housing and living accommodation been improved overall?


How has been their hospital medical treatments and care been and was it improved?

How many holidays at home or overseas have they had, compared with the previous ten years?

If there are young children have the schools been improved, are there attempts to raise the standards for them and others?

Has policing improved?

You should know the crime rates?

Have the pay rates and working conditions for the "poorer" and more vulnerable been improved?

Look around in general and see if conditions and expectancies been improved.

For me this is the legacy of Brown.

Yes, during this period, mistakes have been made, they are bound to have been.

Will mistakes occur in the future? Yes they will.

Has Brown admitted to what he sees as mistakes? Yes.

You may disagree, but I am interested to see the results of the coalition and think that any attempt to push legislation for a fixed term parliament through, without a referendum, I hope will be challenge to the limit.

(The details of the suggested changes have to be examined carefully, but there must be democratic means to bring a government down.)



When you look at the list compare it and the infrastructure of the country with the period of 1980 -1997.

Same old shite! Why don't you guys just give Fred a pat on the head and a lump of sugar. Your trying to knit fog!

The Bluffers Handbook for Politicians.

Fred,

I include Caucasian in immigration
You have agreed that if you were Cameron you would probably have done the same deal. So presumably you have exactly the same faults as he has, IE you said, "Cameron is happy to jettison any principle or ideal he many have had, in order to get into power. The latter has already torn up the promises in the Tory manifestos and cheated his own party".
So hung by your own argument, petard!

As to your other questions, not avoiding the issue, just feel it is obvious that we will never convince each other that our view is the correct one. So whilst 100% accepting that you are entitled to your views (no matter how much I disagree with those views), I will leave it there.

Greek.

We wouldn't have a budget deficet if we were not paying one hundred and twenty thousand million to the EU to keep the Greeks et al. in the style that they do not deserve and have not earned. I am expecting the Euro to fall apart in a few years when it becomes obvious that the Greeks have not changed their ways and owe even more money than they do at present. It is noticable that the FT, which for years tried to persuade the country to join the Euro has quietly dropped its stance, but then they are nearly always well behind things in their thinking. The UKIP members are the sensible ones.

P.S I no longer read Fred's posts as I have better thing sto do with my time and now that I make my money on the markets I no longer have to suffer fools at all, and certainly not gladly.