Brown - future PM 'charming'
Mark, Devon
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5011326.stm
I think that after winning the next general election, he will gain even
more respect. He is, as most people acknowledge, a great chancellor,
and it will be good to see the more personable characteristics emerge.
mma...@my-deja.com
> I think that after winning the next general election, he will gain even
> more respect.
Ha-ha-ha!
> He is, as most people acknowledge, a great chancellor,
Ha-ha-ha-ha!
> and it will be good to see the more personable characteristics emerge.
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
You should do stand-up.
Mark
halle
Is his arsehole still Brown too or did you lick it all clean?
Fred
"Mark, Devon" <coop...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1148474690....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
LOL! Brilliant!!
AlanG
He'd have to get off his knees and wipe that brown stuff of his lips.
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Stephen Glynn
However, if Mr Brown reads today's Guardian, he might find their account
of the latest Guardian/ICM poll makes sobering reading.
'...today's poll suggests that although voters rate Mr Brown ahead of Mr
Blair on many key characteristics, including trust, competence and
honesty, a switch of leaders would not automatically boost Labour support.
'Labour voters - unlike the wider electorate - rate Mr Blair more highly
than the chancellor as someone with wide appeal, someone prepared to
take a stand on difficult issues, and someone more likely to make them
vote Labour. Their caution may simply reflect loyalty to a prime
minister they helped re-elect just over a year ago. But it is reflected
by a possible drop in Labour support in a general election with Mr Brown
as leader.
'Asked how they might vote in an election with Mr Brown as leader,
facing Mr Cameron and Sir Menzies Campbell, voters switch from Labour.
The Conservatives climb to 40%, a nine-point lead over Labour on 31% and
the Lib Dems on 19%.
'Only 85% of people who say they would vote Labour in a general election
with Mr Blair as leader say they would stick with Labour under Mr Brown,
although the party would pick up support from other parties including
the Lib Dems.
'Both this result and the current state of the parties suggest that the
next election may well produce a hung parliament.
'Underlying this is a decline in support for Labour's policies. The most
dramatic change in voters' attitudes has been on the NHS, which Labour
has long regarded as one of its biggest electoral assets. Despite
massive increases in spending and staff numbers since 1997, the Tories
now lead Labour by two points as the party with the best policy on the
NHS. That compares with a 14-point Labour lead when Britain went to the
polls last year.'
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/polls/story/0,,1781624,00.html
And, as Political Betting explains,
'This is the tenth poll in a row from the three main pollsters where the
Tories do better against Labour when the Cameron-Brown voting intention
question is put.
'There can be no getting away from this any more for the harsh polling
reality is that Brown is not the right leader to fight a General
Election against Cameron.'
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2006/05/24/more-poll-gloom-for-gordon/
Steve
--
When I am the Evil Overlord...
I will order my guards to stand in a line when they shoot at the hero so
he cannot duck and have them accidentally shoot each other. Also, I will
order some to aim above, below, and to the sides so he cannot jump out
of the way.
This Evil Overlord List is Copyright 1996-1997 by Peter Anspach.
abelard
typed:
>'Labour voters - unlike the wider electorate - rate Mr Blair more highly
>than the chancellor as someone with wide appeal, someone prepared to
>take a stand on difficult issues, and someone more likely to make them
>vote Labour.
the sheep are not as daft as they're cabbage looking!
>Their caution may simply reflect loyalty to a prime
>minister they helped re-elect just over a year ago.
ah the joy of the socialist groaniad looking for a rationalisation...
>'Asked how they might vote in an election with Mr Brown as leader,
>facing Mr Cameron and Sir Menzies Campbell, voters switch from Labour.
>The Conservatives climb to 40%, a nine-point lead over Labour on 31% and
>the Lib Dems on 19%.
what a surprise...the extreme leftists in the fake lib dem party would be
more likely to vote for the clown!
where do these half-baked pseudo-academics live? islington?
>'Only 85% of people who say they would vote Labour in a general election
>with Mr Blair as leader say they would stick with Labour under Mr Brown,
>although the party would pick up support from other parties including
>the Lib Dems.
>
>'Both this result and the current state of the parties suggest that the
>next election may well produce a hung parliament.
gurgle gurgle gurgle....
>'Underlying this is a decline in support for Labour's policies. The most
>dramatic change in voters' attitudes has been on the NHS, which Labour
>has long regarded as one of its biggest electoral assets. Despite
>massive increases in spending and staff numbers since 1997, the Tories
>now lead Labour by two points as the party with the best policy on the
>NHS. That compares with a 14-point Labour lead when Britain went to the
>polls last year.'
>
>http://politics.guardian.co.uk/polls/story/0,,1781624,00.html
>
>And, as Political Betting explains,
>
>'This is the tenth poll in a row from the three main pollsters where the
>Tories do better against Labour when the Cameron-Brown voting intention
>question is put.
>
>'There can be no getting away from this any more for the harsh polling
>reality is that Brown is not the right leader to fight a General
>Election against Cameron.'
boo hoo....how can i console meself....
regards.....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TD
"Mark, Devon" <coop...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1148474690....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5011326.stm
>
> I think that after winning the next general election, he will gain even
> more respect. He is, as most people acknowledge, a great chancellor,
'At a cost to taxpayers of a mere £2.6 BILLION every single year, Gordo's
Small Business Service perfectly illustrates the incompetent arrogance of
Big Government.
'Gordo set it up because for some unfathomable reason he believes he can
pick business winners, and likes to back his hunches with our money. In
particular, he reckoned many small businesses are failed by commercial
lenders, who fuss too much over tedious details like whether a business will
be able to repay a loan.
...
'The dismal results have just been assessed by the National Audit Office.
They find that already, after just a few years, the default rate on loans
made by the Service is NINE TIMES that of comparable commercial loans.
What's more- surprise surprise- it seems that by favouring the weaker small
businesses who can't get commercial loans, Gordo's soft loans actually
damage stronger competitors
<http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2006/05/picking-winners.html>
allan tracy
> 'This is the tenth poll in a row from the three main pollsters where the
> Tories do better against Labour when the Cameron-Brown voting intention
> question is put.
>
> 'There can be no getting away from this any more for the harsh polling
> reality is that Brown is not the right leader to fight a General
> Election against Cameron.'
>
Which is precisely why he will not be the next leader.
If he had enough support amongst the MPs he would have made his move by
now, so clearly he hasn't.
No matter how much the MPs, by now, may prefer Brown, they obviously
put a much higher value on their seats.
It's been the same ever since John Smith died, Brown needs Blair to
bless his Coronation or he has no chance.
When the blood letting is finally over and Blair decides to shaft
Brown, as surely he must, Brown is going to look a prize pratt when
doesn't emerge as leader.
The only person who can't see this coming is Brown himself, he's
deluded. It really is painful to watch the way he keeps setting himself
up.
Basically, he's playing a hand he never really had all wrong.
Derek ^
wrote:
>Good to see such interest in the likely future PM:-
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5011326.stm
>
>I think that after winning the next general election, he will gain even
>more respect. He is, as most people acknowledge,
Like f*ck they do.
You need to get out more and quit the Brown nosing.
>a great chancellor,
In the same sense that Saddam Hussein is a "great" politician.
>and it will be good to see the more personable characteristics emerge.
DG
Derek ^
>In article <4djkasF...@individual.net>, Stephen Glynn <nye...@trashmail.net> wrote:
>>'Labour voters - unlike the wider electorate - rate Mr Blair more highly
>>than the chancellor as someone with wide appeal,
>
>New Liebour voters would vote for a chincilla so long as it kept New
>Liebour in power.
ITYM a chin-chewer.
DG
Stephen Glynn
I suspect there's a great deal of truth in this recent comment, over at
Ian Dale's Diary, from David Kendrick:
'The next GE will not be decided by "crime and the economy".
'It will be decided by two simpler questions: Have we had enough of this
lot? and, Is it safe/sensible to vote for the other lot?
'Yes and yes leads to a tory majority, no and anything leads to more of
the same.Maybes/possiblies means a hung parliament.
'The economy? It was very healthy in 1997, but the answers to the key
questions were yes and yes, and the tories were washed away.'
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6214838&postID=114847034515896421
Steve
--
When I am the Evil Overlord...
I will explain to my Legions of Terror that guns are ranged weapons and
swords are not. Anyone who attempts to throw a sword at the hero or club
him with a gun will be summarily executed.
abelard
typed:
rotfl....'new' labour indeed....
what is it about socialists with no real world experience that makes the
imagine they are more fit to run business than businessmen?
regards...
><http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2006/05/picking-winners.html>
>
>
>> and it will be good to see the more personable characteristics emerge.
>
>
--
TD
"Derek ^" <use...@miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2cc9721q4e8m5883m...@4ax.com...
> On 24 May 2006 05:44:51 -0700, "Mark, Devon" <coop...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Good to see such interest in the likely future PM:-
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5011326.stm
>>
>>I think that after winning the next general election, he will gain even
>>more respect. He is, as most people acknowledge,
>
> Like f*ck they do.
>
> You need to get out more and quit the Brown nosing.
>
>>a great chancellor,
>
> In the same sense that Saddam Hussein is a "great" politician.
Ah, Mark,Devon = New Labour's 'Comical Ali'?
Derek ^
>>>a great chancellor,
>>
>> In the same sense that Saddam Hussein is a "great" politician.
>
>Ah, Mark,Devon = New Labour's 'Comical Ali'?
>
>>>and it will be good to see the more personable characteristics emerge.
Just for a second I took a double take on that and thought you'd said:
"New Labours Ali G"
Is it 'cos I is thick ?
;-)
DG
pencil
"Mark, Devon" <coop...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1148474690....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Brown's the biggest fraud of them all - and that's saying something.
By the way, what does Brown have on Blair?
Theoneinfrontofyou
news:1148474690....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is that the same Brown who compromised his principles - er, don't ask me
what "principles" he had - by supporting bliar in exchange for some
guarantee that bliar would support his PM bid?
abelard
<thunderb...@hotmail.com>
typed:
>>
>> 'This is the tenth poll in a row from the three main pollsters where the
>> Tories do better against Labour when the Cameron-Brown voting intention
>> question is put.
>>
>> 'There can be no getting away from this any more for the harsh polling
>> reality is that Brown is not the right leader to fight a General
>> Election against Cameron.'
>>
>
>Which is precisely why he will not be the next leader.
>
>If he had enough support amongst the MPs he would have made his move by
>now, so clearly he hasn't.
>
>No matter how much the MPs, by now, may prefer Brown, they obviously
>put a much higher value on their seats.
>
>It's been the same ever since John Smith died, Brown needs Blair to
>bless his Coronation or he has no chance.
>
>When the blood letting is finally over and Blair decides to shaft
>Brown, as surely he must, Brown is going to look a prize pratt
ah, reality then
>when
>doesn't emerge as leader.
>
>The only person who can't see this coming is Brown himself, he's
>deluded. It really is painful to watch the way he keeps setting himself
>up.
>
>Basically, he's playing a hand he never really had all wrong.
--
Mark, Devon
I agree. And it is up to Labour to both refresh themselves entirely and
show that the Tories are inept. And I think they will do both.
Otherwise electoral failure for Labour will undoubtedly result.
Mark, Devon
If you don't know what principles he has what makes you think he
compromised them?
the auroran sunset
(in article <e529qa$6r9$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>):
i've used this as part of a long news item on abelard.org:
http://www.abelard.org/news/politics0605.php#brown_picking_winners_250506
let me know if you want a link with your acknowledgment.. or if you are
otherwise unhappy with it..
to infinity and beyond.
--
the auroran sunset / tithonus / fennel
personal website: http://www.aoiko.net/
party: http://www.emancipationparty.org/
work: http://www.abelard.org/
Greg Hennessy
wrote:
>>
>> <http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2006/05/picking-winners.html>
>
>i've used this as part of a long news item on abelard.org:
>http://www.abelard.org/news/politics0605.php#brown_picking_winners_250506
>
>let me know if you want a link with your acknowledgment.. or if you are
>otherwise unhappy with it..
Further to your commentary on Wilson....
When President of the Board of Trade he was ultimately responsible for the
decision to ship RR Nene jet engines in exchange Soviet supplied soft
timber.
Timber which was readily available throughout the sterling zone. So the
notion that scarce forex would have been needed to obtain it is moot.
Engine technology which advanced the Soviet jet program by about 3 years.
Leading to 17 odd thousand unlicensed copies which were then used against
British and US pilots over Korea.
20 years later, he was responsible for the decision to cancel the TSR2 and
more importantly the order to destroy all the jigs and machinery so that it
would be virtually impossible for a Tory govt to resurrect it
Leading on to the hollow promise to procure the F111 for the RAF, which was
then cancelled due it's unit cost escalating to more than what it would
have cost to buy the TSR2 in the 1st place.
He cancelled the 2 CVA01 RN aircraft carriers & ordered the destruction of
UK Naval Aviation.
He also cancelled the 5th Polaris boat, A serious issue because the
deterrent numbers game required at least two SSBNs on station at all times
to be truly effective.
Then there was the F4 Phantom procurement for the RAF and RN, where someone
at cabinet level decided that shoehorning RR Spey engines to an airframe
not designed for them would be really really good idea, ensuring that the
plane was nearly a decade late entering service and costing twice the price
of the Phantom 12 other nations were buying.
Of course being twice the price, the RAF ended up getting half the
airframes it needed, and for the 1st 3 years flying with engines which only
had a 50-100 hour lifespan before requiring overhaul.
greg
--
Every Villian Is Lemons
the auroran sunset
(in article <fred725e4vn4qsk7t...@4ax.com>):
none of this seems out of character, but... do you have a reference or
references? must be a good book out there on the history of communist
infiltration of british politics..
Greg Hennessy
wrote:
>> Of course being twice the price, the RAF ended up getting half the
>> airframes it needed, and for the 1st 3 years flying with engines which only
>> had a 50-100 hour lifespan before requiring overhaul.
>
>none of this seems out of character, but... do you have a reference or
>references?
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=124
"In 1946, Soviet aviation minister Mikhail Khrunichev and aircraft designer
Alexander Yakovlev suggested to Stalin that the USSR buy advanced jet
engines from the British. Stalin gave them an acid reply: "What fool will
sell us his secrets?" However, he let the exercise go ahead, with Artyom
Mikoyan, engine designer Valdimir Klimov, and others paying a visit to the
UK, and to Stalin's amazement the British were perfectly willing to sell. "
The soviets didnt even have to buy them.
> must be a good book out there on the history of communist
>infiltration of british politics..
Nothing which pulls it all together, if the US is anything to go by post
war, there was equivalent if not more communist infiltration at the highest
levels of UK govt and the civil service.
Unlike the US we didn't have HUAC going through the Venona decrypts &
clearing them out.
greg
--
If you want venality, if you want ignorance, if you want drunkenness,
and facility for being intimidated; or if, on the other hand, you
want impulsive, unreflecting, and violent people, where do you look
Do you go to the top or to the bottom?
the auroran sunset
(in article <pnoe72hubnem7cslr...@4ax.com>):
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 21:06:42 +0200, the auroran sunset <u...@aoiko.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Of course being twice the price, the RAF ended up getting half the
>>> airframes it needed, and for the 1st 3 years flying with engines which only
>>> had a 50-100 hour lifespan before requiring overhaul.
>>
>> none of this seems out of character, but... do you have a reference or
>> references?
>
> http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=124
>
> "In 1946, Soviet aviation minister Mikhail Khrunichev and aircraft designer
> Alexander Yakovlev suggested to Stalin that the USSR buy advanced jet
> engines from the British. Stalin gave them an acid reply: "What fool will
> sell us his secrets?" However, he let the exercise go ahead, with Artyom
> Mikoyan, engine designer Valdimir Klimov, and others paying a visit to the
> UK, and to Stalin's amazement the British were perfectly willing to sell. "
>
> The soviets didnt even have to buy them.
i thought you said they bought them for timber..
>> must be a good book out there on the history of communist
>> infiltration of british politics..
>
> Nothing which pulls it all together, if the US is anything to go by post
> war, there was equivalent if not more communist infiltration at the highest
> levels of UK govt and the civil service.
with the like of the cambridge five and the positions they reached, i can
well believe it.
> Unlike the US we didn't have HUAC going through the Venona decrypts &
> clearing them out.
sure.
[nothing i've seen makes it clear whether the huac had access to venona..
i've seen things suggesting that truman was kept in the dark about where the
information was coming from, which makes me doubt that the huac would be
told!]
Greg Hennessy
wrote:
>> http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=124
>>
>> "In 1946, Soviet aviation minister Mikhail Khrunichev and aircraft designer
>> Alexander Yakovlev suggested to Stalin that the USSR buy advanced jet
>> engines from the British. Stalin gave them an acid reply: "What fool will
>> sell us his secrets?" However, he let the exercise go ahead, with Artyom
>> Mikoyan, engine designer Valdimir Klimov, and others paying a visit to the
>> UK, and to Stalin's amazement the British were perfectly willing to sell. "
>>
>> The soviets didnt even have to buy them.
>
>i thought you said they bought them for timber..
Bartered through the 1946 anglo soviet trade agreement.
No hard currency involved, which would have been much more useful than
timber which could have been bought in the Sterling zone.
>
>>> must be a good book out there on the history of communist
>>> infiltration of british politics..
>>
>> Nothing which pulls it all together, if the US is anything to go by post
>> war, there was equivalent if not more communist infiltration at the highest
>> levels of UK govt and the civil service.
>
>with the like of the cambridge five and the positions they reached, i can
>well believe it.
If Melitta Norwood got away with it for 50 years, then others assuredly
did.
>
>> Unlike the US we didn't have HUAC going through the Venona decrypts &
>> clearing them out.
>
>sure.
>[nothing i've seen makes it clear whether the huac had access to venona..
Not directly, IIRC the FBI was liasing with the decrypt team and pointed
HUAC in the general direction of those who were identified.
>i've seen things suggesting that truman was kept in the dark about where the
>information was coming from,
Considering the level of infilitration, that's not surprising, I believe
Omar Bradley took the decision.
the auroran sunset
(in article <1p0h72hk90jgcfqpg...@4ax.com>):
> On Sat, 27 May 2006 15:54:38 +0200, the auroran sunset <u...@aoiko.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=124
>>>
>>> "In 1946, Soviet aviation minister Mikhail Khrunichev and aircraft designer
>>> Alexander Yakovlev suggested to Stalin that the USSR buy advanced jet
>>> engines from the British. Stalin gave them an acid reply: "What fool will
>>> sell us his secrets?" However, he let the exercise go ahead, with Artyom
>>> Mikoyan, engine designer Valdimir Klimov, and others paying a visit to the
>>> UK, and to Stalin's amazement the British were perfectly willing to sell. "
>>>
>>> The soviets didnt even have to buy them.
>>
>> i thought you said they bought them for timber..
>
> Bartered through the 1946 anglo soviet trade agreement.
>
> No hard currency involved, which would have been much more useful than
> timber which could have been bought in the Sterling zone.
no problem with you saying that it was a criminally bad deal, but saying the
ruskies didn't have to buy designs/engines seemed excessive..
>>>> must be a good book out there on the history of communist
>>>> infiltration of british politics..
>>>
>>> Nothing which pulls it all together, if the US is anything to go by post
>>> war, there was equivalent if not more communist infiltration at the highest
>>> levels of UK govt and the civil service.
>>
>> with the like of the cambridge five and the positions they reached, i can
>> well believe it.
>
> If Melitta Norwood got away with it for 50 years, then others assuredly
> did.
had to look her up and in the process found this fascinating review, with
lots of history:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/118
i've put it on the abelard news along with linking to your wilson comments
here. let me know if you want a link or to be acknowledge differently..
http://www.abelard.org/news/review0601.php#us_politics_030306
>>
>>> Unlike the US we didn't have HUAC going through the Venona decrypts &
>>> clearing them out.
>>
>> sure.
>> [nothing i've seen makes it clear whether the huac had access to venona..
>
> Not directly, IIRC the FBI was liasing with the decrypt team and pointed
> HUAC in the general direction of those who were identified.
apparently huac didn't uncover a single real spy.. my impression is that
mccarthy was a slimeball demagogue exploiting a real problem for his own
insalubrious ends. does that seem reasonable to you?
>> i've seen things suggesting that truman was kept in the dark about where
>> the
>> information was coming from,
>
> Considering the level of infilitration, that's not surprising, I believe
> Omar Bradley took the decision.
indeed.