Quote: oldcowgrazing @ May 19 2009, 12:44 AM BSTAnd another thing: We're all Telegraph readers now!
Thought you'd f**ked off.
Stephen Fry hits the nail on the head! Page 10
You think a lot of things but as usual, you're wrong.
Quote: oldcowgrazing @ May 19 2009, 2:12 AM BSTYou think a lot of things but as usual, you're wrong.
More's the pity. I've re-read your posts and I do agree with you on at least one thing. You are indeed a rude old cow. Well done on being so self-aware.
Quote: Lee Henman @ May 19 2009, 2:19 AM BSTMore's the pity. I've re-read your posts and I do agree with you on at least one thing. You are indeed a rude old cow. Well done on being so self-aware.
Thank you for your kind words.
In er, other news....
Fu.Kin.Ell
Mark Francois 12/05/2009 Personal Additional Accomodation Allowance Rent - London 1,582.00
http://spreadsheets.google.com/tq?tqx=out:html&tq=select%20*&key=rR1-1we0zvyDXudWYRFkPpQ
Edited: Stupid bloody link! That'll be Michael Martin *still* trying to block the public from viewing the moats!
Just copy and paste it.
Quote: oldcowgrazing @ May 19 2009, 12:06 AM BSTEven he's realised how woefully wrong he got it
No he hasn't, not as far as the stuff I've read anyway. He's been upset by how his comments were interpreted and how it's made him look, but not changed his mind on it.
Quote: Aaron @ May 19 2009, 2:33 AM BSTNo he hasn't, not as far as the stuff I've read anyway. He's been upset by how his comments were interpreted and how it's made him look, but not changed his mind on it.
Meh, it's not about the Fry anyway, so I'm not really bothered about whether he's regretting it or not.
Quote: oldcowgrazing @ May 19 2009, 2:23 AM BSTIn er, other news....
Fu.Kin.Ell
Mark Francois 12/05/2009 Personal Additional Accomodation Allowance Rent - London 1,582.00
How much is that for? A month? Pretty reasonable for London.
Sheesh! Talk about the cock aiming for the toilet bowl and completely missing it!
http://page.politicshome.com/uk/speakers_statement_full_transcript.html
Edit: That's not to say *we're* taking his piss, mind. That'll be him.
Quote: Maurice Minor @ May 19 2009, 12:33 AM BSTWe've been pondering this at University this year, studying public law. We went through the problems with the Lords, the reforms half completed and the rest of it half-baked, and I couldn't help but come back to the realisation that the hereditary principle worked best. The ideal parliamentarian is someone utterly unmotivated by personal gain and concerned with what is best for the Nation, long-term. The old aristocracy, defined by its land ownership and inherited wealth, is generally not going to be influenced by a few quid from a dodgy businessman trying to fudge a piece of legislation.
Yes. Exactly. Exxxxactly. The system of hereditary peers had nothing wrong with it. It worked fine for the n-hundred years preceding 1997. We're no better served now, and quite arguably worse off. A total disgrace what they did to the upper chamber, IMO. At very least, if you're going to change something, decide what you're changing it TO before starting. Their behaviour since has proven that they weren't concerned with the "unfair" situation of these naughty unelected, out-of-date landowners controlling the Lords, but that the unelected people in it weren't predominantly Labour or their sympathisers. On the occasion when the Lords have objected to this vile administration's legislation, they've just overruled them with an illegal AOP anyway; it's farcical. I would be delighted to see the House restored as it was on 1st January 1997.
That's my point with the Monarchy - having someone with no vested interests other than that of the "best for the country", someone who has been effectively trained from birth for the role, with impartiality and diplomacy, with no hidden agenda: that can only be a good thing. I've said it before and I'll say it again; there's something inherently untrustworthy about someone who actively seeks power.
Quote: Maurice Minor @ May 19 2009, 12:33 AM BSTAnd now we have two New Labour peers suspended from the House - the first time since 1642. That is the result of ill-thought-out, botched tinkering with a system that has grown and evolved over 800 years. We now have a Speaker, installed by Blair and completely ineffectual, about to be the first to be forced from office since 1645. So much for progress...
The suspension of those two fools is further proof of how buggered up everything really is. Such a shameful, shameful position Parliament is in.
And I considered Martin to be a useless tit right from the go. Unashamedly pro-Government (although not to be unexpected of the Raj), barely managing the slightest guise of balance within the Chamber. He's been undermining the Commons since the day he was elected.
Quote: Maurice Minor @ May 19 2009, 12:33 AM BSTMeandering ever more off topic, but I always thought that one of the most significant influences on New Labour, Blair and Brown, was actually John Major. That nice Mr Major was basically bullied mercilessly for 5 years by Blair and Brown (with help from Max Clifford). The Major government was marred by sleaze and scandal with what seemed like a constant stream of resignations and splits for dodgy reasons. The one lesson Labour took was to do everything possible to avoid giving in to media pressure to sack someone. A scandal has to be managed; to sack someone is a sign of dissent and weakness. They knew what that did to Major and they loved it, but they have been haunted by the fear it'll happen to them. Which is why nobody leaves until a reshuffle. Blears should be out on her ear but isn't, and Michael Martin will not be pushed out either.
A very good point, yes. Similar situation they got themselves in with the leaks really. Survived on it through the 1990s, then get their Speaker weasel to bring criminal investigations and police raids against today's opposition for doing exactly the same. I heard something really interesting last week actually, can't remember where, but someone saying that John Major had actually been one of our best PMs, continuing to rebuild the country and restabilise the economy despite the public scandals which were breaking. Brown would have us believe that he "saved" the economy from total-shit to solid-gold in 1997, but that's far from the case. The economy was growing steadily, and Brown sent it dropping off, although somehow managed to cover things up until relatively recently when the American market imploded. No wonder he had his five golden rules before he'd even consider Euro adoption - would have meant letting outsiders have a proper look at the books.
What I really want to see is how this Labour Government (plural only by name, not nature) will be remembered and written about over the next decade or two, particularly in comparison to the Major era. I suspect that John will come out considerably higher than Tony or El Gordo.
Oh, and Gordon Brown is a feckless imbecile.
OK, Lee, I was way over the top earlier today and I could have put my point across less forcibly. Therefore I apologise for calling you an arse, and your posts idiotic. Next time I shall try to remember to breathe before posting. 
I hope we can put this unfortunate incident to rest and move on. Lessons have been learned, systems will be put in place, never to be repeated, deeply saddened, moment of madness..unfortunate turn of events..never again..public inquiry..independent enquiry..rather unfortunate...saddened..the economy is recovering...
Still think you're wrong though. 
Right, bed!
Major was not so nice more of a bully and a control freak. One of those peculiar cases of people remembering the satire not the person.
The conservative party never really bounced from kicking out Thatcher and they like Labour now couldn't spin a recession.;
I can never understand why Thatcher didn't decide when to quit, or have some sort of plan. She was shrewd - whether or not she had a list of things still to achieve, she should have been savvy enough to realise that a politician can't go on forever and can never do everything they set out to do. It has to be handed on at some point. She will always be remembered for the way she was kicked out. And it did keep them out of power for a long time as they didn't know what to do next.
Quote: Maurice Minor @ May 19 2009, 9:51 AM BSTI can never understand why Thatcher didn't decide when to quit, or have some sort of plan.
Because she thought she was immortal, poltically speaking. They all do. They never think it will end. And they're surrounded by yes men who feed this delusion.
Is this what you meant Chip?
Quote: chipolata @ May 19 2009, 9:59 AM BSTBecause she thought she was immoral, poltically speaking.
Quote: Rob H @ May 19 2009, 10:00 AM BSTIs this what you meant Chip?
(We all thought it, anyway, if she didn't).