Well it can't be ruled out.

So what should Labour do to make this possible?

Personally, I think they blew it by getting rid of Blair a mistake
they now can't undo, or can they?

On 21 Aug, 21:28, allan tracy  wrote:
> Well it can't be ruled out.
>
> So what should Labour do to make this possible?
>
> Personally, I think they blew it by getting rid of Blair a mistake
> they now can't undo, or can they?

Oh dear.   Poor delusional Gordon.  However, he may have the biggest
penis in Downing Street, but I even doubt that!

Turk182

Turk182 wrote:
> On 21 Aug, 21:28, allan tracy  wrote:
>> Well it can't be ruled out.
>>
>> So what should Labour do to make this possible?
>>
>> Personally, I think they blew it by getting rid of Blair a mistake
>> they now can't undo, or can they?
>
> Oh dear.   Poor delusional Gordon.  However, he may have the biggest
> penis in Downing Street, but I even doubt that!
>
> Turk182

I'm told the Government Chief Whip at Number 12 possesses admirable 
equipment, but I care not to know what it is.

On 21 Aug, 21:28, allan tracy  wrote:
> Well it can't be ruled out.
>
> So what should Labour do to make this possible?
>
> Personally, I think they blew it by getting rid of Blair a mistake
> they now can't undo, or can they?

Your continued obsession with the Labour party is noted.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:28:12 -0700 (PDT), allan tracy
 wrote:

>
>Well it can't be ruled out.
>
>So what should Labour do to make this possible?
>
>Personally, I think they blew it by getting rid of Blair a mistake
>they now can't undo, or can they?

Yes they can win quite easily:

Do not invade Iraq
Do not have any troops based in Iraq
Do not have any troops based in Afghanistan
Do not side with America on everything they ask us to.
Do not have a one sided extradition agreement with America.
Do not accuse Russia of causing the Georgia conflict.
Do not agree with US missiles being based in Poland - unless we agree
with Russian missiles being based in Cuba.
Do not say that they will introduce ID cards
Do not pretend that 42 days is necessary




eeeer - that's all I can think of after a few large G&Ts

wrote in message 
news:brtra45ettta41e6kdsrt30odlmvu0fopq@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:28:12 -0700 (PDT), allan tracy
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>Well it can't be ruled out.
>>
>>So what should Labour do to make this possible?
>>
>>Personally, I think they blew it by getting rid of Blair a mistake
>>they now can't undo, or can they?
>
> Yes they can win quite easily:
>
> Do not invade Iraq
> Do not have any troops based in Iraq
> Do not have any troops based in Afghanistan
> Do not side with America on everything they ask us to.
> Do not have a one sided extradition agreement with America.
> Do not accuse Russia of causing the Georgia conflict.
> Do not agree with US missiles being based in Poland - unless we agree
> with Russian missiles being based in Cuba.
> Do not say that they will introduce ID cards
> Do not pretend that 42 days is necessary
>
>
>
>
> eeeer - that's all I can think of after a few large G&Ts

Well, that's the foreign policy taken care of - what about domestic issues?
Here goes-

Cut taxes
Cut petrol prices
Cut crime
Cut utility bills
Cut immigration
Give us a bloody break, we're sinking under the weight of this grabbing 
government!

-- 
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket

> Do not invade Iraq
> Do not have any troops based in Iraq
> Do not have any troops based in Afghanistan
> Do not side with America on everything they ask us to.
> Do not have a one sided extradition agreement with America.
> Do not accuse Russia of causing the Georgia conflict.
> Do not agree with US missiles being based in Poland - unless we agree
> with Russian missiles being based in Cuba.
> Do not say that they will introduce ID cards
> Do not pretend that 42 days is necessary
>
Stop fleecing the middle classes and wasting the money
Restore my pension

On 21 Aug, 17:13, "Baroness Edwina Frogbucket" 
wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:brtra45ettta41e6kdsrt30odlmvu0fopq@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:28:12 -0700 (PDT), allan tracy
> >  wrote:
>
> >>Well it can't be ruled out.
>
> >>So what should Labour do to make this possible?
>
> >>Personally, I think they blew it by getting rid of Blair a mistake
> >>they now can't undo, or can they?
>
> > Yes they can win quite easily:
>
> > Do not invade Iraq
> > Do not have any troops based in Iraq
> > Do not have any troops based in Afghanistan
> > Do not side with America on everything they ask us to.
> > Do not have a one sided extradition agreement with America.
> > Do not accuse Russia of causing the Georgia conflict.
> > Do not agree with US missiles being based in Poland - unless we agree
> > with Russian missiles being based in Cuba.
> > Do not say that they will introduce ID cards
> > Do not pretend that 42 days is necessary
>
> > eeeer - that's all I can think of after a few large G&Ts
>
> Well, that's the foreign policy taken care of - what about domestic issues?
> Here goes-
>
> Cut taxes
> Cut petrol prices
> Cut crime
> Cut utility bills
> Cut immigration
> Give us a bloody break, we're sinking under the weight of this grabbing
> government!
>
> --
> Baroness Edwina Frogbucket- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Labour's entire style of government based on increased taxes and
immigration now looks dated. They have nothing even new sounding to
offer. It's as dated as public ownership and mass strikes in the
1970s. The defects are now all too obvious.

Isn't it still an offence to make threats?

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:11:06 +0100, "TTT"  wrote:

>Stop fleecing the middle classes and wasting the money
>Restore my pension

how? by fleecing the middle classes?

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

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:25:05 +0100, judithsmith@live.co.uk wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:28:12 -0700 (PDT), allan tracy
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Well it can't be ruled out.
>>
>>So what should Labour do to make this possible?
>>
>>Personally, I think they blew it by getting rid of Blair a mistake
>>they now can't undo, or can they?
>
>Yes they can win quite easily:
>
>Do not invade Iraq
>Do not have any troops based in Iraq
>Do not have any troops based in Afghanistan
>Do not side with America on everything they ask us to.
>Do not have a one sided extradition agreement with America.
>Do not accuse Russia of causing the Georgia conflict.
>Do not agree with US missiles being based in Poland - unless we agree
>with Russian missiles being based in Cuba.
>Do not say that they will introduce ID cards
>Do not pretend that 42 days is necessary

ah, the romantic left that never ever learns....
there's only about ten of you chanting your daft slogans in the
     high street....while intelligent people try not to giggle....

>eeeer - that's all I can think of after a few large G&Ts 

now, of that i have no doubt at all
or even before you got soaked

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

I heard a strange squealing noise from outside.

When I looked out of the window a large flock of pigs was just flying 
over...

Well I suppose the Tories could implode, but as far as Labour is concerned 
their sails are set and there is a strong landward wind blowing them onto 
the rocks.

"allan tracy"  wrote in message 
news:95d6d305-20bd-491b-a4f2-eb305012de0e@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Well it can't be ruled out.
>
> So what should Labour do to make this possible?
>
> Personally, I think they blew it by getting rid of Blair a mistake
> they now can't undo, or can they?

>
> Your continued obsession with the Labour party is noted.
>

What Brown did to Blair is unprecedented in modern history (and I'm
talking the last five hundred years here).

It may have been within the rules but never before has personal
ambition been used as an excuse to remove a sitting Prime Minister
without any consideration of the needs of party or country and worse
without reference to either.

Naked ambition and treachery are the only reasons why Gordon Brown is
now Prime Minister and I remain utterly confounded that this does not
horrendously shock commentators, media or our nation.

He’s simply been allowed to get away with it and even now the calls
for his removal are for reasons of supposed inadequacy and poor
opinion polls when the bastard should have been strung up for his
utter premeditated arrogance in the first place.

I say again, British Prime Ministers are made, not self-made.

That his leadership should all unfold to be the biggest tits up
disaster for his party ever seen is at least some consolation.

He that lives by the sword ……. (and all that).

>
> Do not invade Iraq
> Do not have any troops based in Iraq
> Do not have any troops based in Afghanistan
> Do not side with America on everything they ask us to.
> Do not have a one sided extradition agreement with America.
> Do not accuse Russia of causing the Georgia conflict.
> Do not agree with US missiles being based in Poland - unless we agree
> with Russian missiles being based in Cuba.
> Do not say that they will introduce ID cards
> Do not pretend that 42 days is necessary
>

Well maybe they should have, but I think you need to come to terms
with the fact that none of the above stopped Blair winning a third
term.

>
> Labour's entire style of government based on increased taxes and
> immigration now looks dated. They have nothing even new sounding to
> offer. It's as dated as public ownership and mass strikes in the
> 1970s. The defects are now all too obvious.
>

It is like living through a time warp.

Brown is just a throwback to the 1970s a flat earther.

On Aug 22, 12:25 am, judithsm...@live.co.uk wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:28:12 -0700 (PDT), allan tracy
>
>  wrote:
>
> >Well it can't be ruled out.
>
> >So what should Labour do to make this possible?
>
> >Personally, I think they blew it by getting rid of Blair a mistake
> >they now can't undo, or can they?
>
> Yes they can win quite easily:
>
> Do not invade Iraq
> Do not have any troops based in Iraq
> Do not have any troops based in Afghanistan
> Do not side with America on everything they ask us to.
> Do not have a one sided extradition agreement with America.
> Do not accuse Russia of causing the Georgia conflict.
> Do not agree with US missiles being based in Poland - unless we agree
> with Russian missiles being based in Cuba.
> Do not say that they will introduce ID cards
> Do not pretend that 42 days is necessary
>
> eeeer - that's all I can think of after a few large G&Ts

Good post. That list could be oh so much longer.

Do not sell peerages
Do not let millions of third world layabouts into the country
Do not raise the cost of a passport from £18 to £80

On Aug 22, 4:42 pm, St Georges Day April 23rd
 wrote:
> On Aug 22, 12:25 am, judithsm...@live.co.uk wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:28:12 -0700 (PDT), allan tracy
>
> >  wrote:
>
> > >Well it can't be ruled out.
>
> > >So what should Labour do to make this possible?
>
> > >Personally, I think they blew it by getting rid of Blair a mistake
> > >they now can't undo, or can they?
>
> > Yes they can win quite easily:
>
> > Do not invade Iraq
> > Do not have any troops based in Iraq
> > Do not have any troops based in Afghanistan
> > Do not side with America on everything they ask us to.
> > Do not have a one sided extradition agreement with America.
> > Do not accuse Russia of causing the Georgia conflict.
> > Do not agree with US missiles being based in Poland - unless we agree
> > with Russian missiles being based in Cuba.
> > Do not say that they will introduce ID cards
> > Do not pretend that 42 days is necessary
>
> > eeeer - that's all I can think of after a few large G&Ts
>
> Good post. That list could be oh so much longer.
>
> Do not sell peerages
> Do not let millions of third world layabouts into the country
> Do not raise the cost of a passport from £18 to £80

Labour is fucked. I will tell you that now. 'New' won't be enough to
disguise thei anti-British internationalism next time.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:05:53 -0700 (PDT), allan tracy
 wrote:

>>
>> Your continued obsession with the Labour party is noted.
>>
>
>What Brown did to Blair is unprecedented in modern history (and I'm
>talking the last five hundred years here).
>
>It may have been within the rules but never before has personal
>ambition been used as an excuse to remove a sitting Prime Minister
>without any consideration of the needs of party or country and worse
>without reference to either.

It's all personal ambition when you get down to it.  Blair thought he
was the best man to run things, which is why he put himself forward
for party leader.  What's worse is that he was a bloody God botherer,
so he probably thought it was His Divine Will that he be PM.

Brown also wanted the job because he thought he was the best man to do
it.  No different to Blair or anyone other PM.

>Naked ambition and treachery are the only reasons why Gordon Brown is
>now Prime Minister and I remain utterly confounded that this does not
>horrendously shock commentators, media or our nation.

Naked ambition, perhaps, but there was no treachery involved.  Blair
had to go, not just because Brown wanted him to, but because the rest
of the Labour party had come to realise what an arrogant, egotistical,
unelectable prick he had become.

>He’s simply been allowed to get away with it and even now the calls
>for his removal are for reasons of supposed inadequacy and poor
>opinion polls when the bastard should have been strung up for his
>utter premeditated arrogance in the first place.
>
>I say again, British Prime Ministers are made, not self-made.

Rubbish.  Who "made" Blair then?  He wouldn't have had a look-in if it
hadn't been for the unfortunate death of John Smith.  He was self-made
by the whole New Labour Project hype machine.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:11:06 +0100, TTT  wrote:

>> Do not invade Iraq
>> Do not have any troops based in Iraq
>> Do not have any troops based in Afghanistan
>> Do not side with America on everything they ask us to.
>> Do not have a one sided extradition agreement with America.
>> Do not accuse Russia of causing the Georgia conflict.
>> Do not agree with US missiles being based in Poland - unless we agree
>> with Russian missiles being based in Cuba.
>> Do not say that they will introduce ID cards
>> Do not pretend that 42 days is necessary
>>
> Stop fleecing the middle classes and wasting the money
> Restore my pension

The government doesn't control stock market prices you know.

Fred X

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:39:38 +0200, abelard 
wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:11:06 +0100, "TTT"  wrote:
>
>>Stop fleecing the middle classes and wasting the money
>>Restore my pension
>
>how? by fleecing the middle classes?

Wonder how many middle classes work for the state?
I regard anyone with an income more than 30000pa as middle class

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:41:51 +0100, Alang 
wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:39:38 +0200, abelard 
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:11:06 +0100, "TTT"  wrote:
>>
>>>Stop fleecing the middle classes and wasting the money
>>>Restore my pension
>>
>>how? by fleecing the middle classes?
>
>Wonder how many middle classes work for the state?
>I regard anyone with an income more than 30000pa as middle class

i'll go along...but what is your point?

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

On 22 Aug, 16:05, allan tracy  wrote:
> > Your continued obsession with the Labour party is noted.
>
> What Brown did to Blair is unprecedented in modern history (and I'm
> talking the last five hundred years here).
>
Erm, no. It was Blair who made the decision to go when it suited him,
not Brown.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:51:47 +0200, abelard 
wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:41:51 +0100, Alang 
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:39:38 +0200, abelard 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:11:06 +0100, "TTT"  wrote:
>>>
>>>>Stop fleecing the middle classes and wasting the money
>>>>Restore my pension
>>>
>>>how? by fleecing the middle classes?
>>
>>Wonder how many middle classes work for the state?
>>I regard anyone with an income more than 30000pa as middle class
>
>i'll go along...but what is your point?
>

There are around 30 million people in full time employment. The
average salary is around 25k. How many state employees  get more than
30000? (Plus often early retirement and a fat pension paid for out of
taxes.)

> Well it can't be ruled out.
> 
> So what should Labour do to make this possible?

Amazingly 25% of the population say they still support Labour.  I don't 
know where those people are hiding - I never seem to meet them - but 
assuming it's true then I suppose if the remaining 75% spreads its vote 
between Torys, LibDems, and Others then it could be close...

In article <48af0c3a$0$2927$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, nospam@nospam.com 
says...
> > Well it can't be ruled out.
> > 
> > So what should Labour do to make this possible?
> 
> Amazingly 25% of the population say they still support Labour.  I don't 
> know where those people are hiding - I never seem to meet them - but 
> assuming it's true then I suppose if the remaining 75% spreads its vote 
> between Torys, LibDems, and Others then it could be close...

It's the fuckwits that think voting ever changes anything that are the 
worst.
-- 
SAm.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:50:44 +0100, Alang 
wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:51:47 +0200, abelard 
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:41:51 +0100, Alang 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:39:38 +0200, abelard 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:11:06 +0100, "TTT"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stop fleecing the middle classes and wasting the money
>>>>>Restore my pension
>>>>
>>>>how? by fleecing the middle classes?
>>>
>>>Wonder how many middle classes work for the state?
>>>I regard anyone with an income more than 30000pa as middle class
>>
>>i'll go along...but what is your point?
>>
>
>There are around 30 million people in full time employment. The
>average salary is around 25k. How many state employees  get more than
>30000? (Plus often early retirement and a fat pension paid for out of
>taxes.)

i don't know...i don't much care...and i can't be bothered to look
     up the figures....
i still don't know why you're asking....or where you're going...

i've lost your map

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

>
> It's all personal ambition when you get down to it.  Blair thought he
> was the best man to run things, which is why he put himself forward
> for party leader.  What's worse is that he was a bloody God botherer,
> so he probably thought it was His Divine Will that he be PM.
>

Yes, but he was up for the job because of circumstances it wasn't as
if he had been plotting John Smith's downfall.

> Brown also wanted the job because he thought he was the best man to do
> it.  No different to Blair or anyone other PM.
>

Exactly, that was his opportunity but it wasn't to be and he should
have accepted the will of the party and not embarked on a campaign of
disloyalty for the next ten years.

>
> Naked ambition, perhaps, but there was no treachery involved.  Blair
> had to go, not just because Brown wanted him to, but because the rest
> of the Labour party had come to realise what an arrogant, egotistical,
> unelectable prick he had become.
>

That's rubbish everyone knows he was pushed he had only been elected
one year when Brown started his plotting and that against a PM that
had stood on a mandate of serving a full term.

There was no real pressure amongst the elctorate for Blair to go and
certainly not in favour of Brown.

Agreed, the party was itching by then to get someone else in but then
Blair was the best thing they ever had and they blew it.

No change there then, Cameron has known all along he doesn't need
policies just bide your time and wait for Labour to push the self-
destruct like they always do.

> >I say again, British Prime Ministers are made, not self-made.
>
> Rubbish.  Who "made" Blair then?  He wouldn't have had a look-in if it
> hadn't been for the unfortunate death of John Smith.  He was self-made
> by the whole New Labour Project hype machine.

Exactly, the right man in the right place at the right time,
circumstance made him and that's how it should be.

On 22 Aug, 19:27, Frank Booth Snr  wrote:
> On 22 Aug, 16:05, allan tracy  wrote:> > Your continued obsession with the Labour party is noted.
>
> > What Brown did to Blair is unprecedented in modern history (and I'm
> > talking the last five hundred years here).
>
> Erm, no. It was Blair who made the decision to go when it suited him,
> not Brown.

Does anyone, apart from Labour supporters in denial, really believe
that?

Traditional Labour has always hated Blair and the thing they hated
most about him was that they needed him, or someone like him, to get
elected and that still hasn't changed.
.
But that didn’t stop them being all delusional over Brown.

Brown wasn’t electable twelve years ago so what, in their tiny little
minds, made them believe that after ten years of him being unleashed
on the country’s finances anything would have changed for the better.

Blair new that which was why he was trying to set someone else up for
the job but the maths were against him by then.

No doubt the bile will all come out one day, suitably out of range of
electoral damage and party loyalty i.e. after the next election.

We already know that Prescott told Blair to sack him so where exactly
does that fit in with your cosy harmonious relationship?

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:45:32 -0700 (PDT), allan tracy
 wrote:

>>
>> It's all personal ambition when you get down to it.  Blair thought he
>> was the best man to run things, which is why he put himself forward
>> for party leader.  What's worse is that he was a bloody God botherer,
>> so he probably thought it was His Divine Will that he be PM.
>>
>
>Yes, but he was up for the job because of circumstances it wasn't as
>if he had been plotting John Smith's downfall.

He saw an opportunity to get himself the top job and he took it.  When
Brown saw that the tide of opinion had turned against Blair he did the
same thing.  No difference, IMO.  That's what politicians do.

>> Brown also wanted the job because he thought he was the best man to do
>> it.  No different to Blair or anyone other PM.
>>
>
>Exactly, that was his opportunity but it wasn't to be and he should
>have accepted the will of the party and not embarked on a campaign of
>disloyalty for the next ten years.

Where was he disloyal?  He served alongside Blair as chancellor for
ten years.

>> Naked ambition, perhaps, but there was no treachery involved.  Blair
>> had to go, not just because Brown wanted him to, but because the rest
>> of the Labour party had come to realise what an arrogant, egotistical,
>> unelectable prick he had become.
>>
>
>That's rubbish everyone knows he was pushed

Yes, but not by Brown alone.

>he had only been elected one year when Brown started his plotting and 
>that against a PM that had stood on a mandate of serving a full term.
>
>There was no real pressure amongst the elctorate for Blair to go and
>certainly not in favour of Brown.

Really?  You must inhabit a different UK to me, then, because the
general mood from where I was standing was that people were generally
sick to the back teeth of the lying shyster.

>Agreed, the party was itching by then to get someone else in but then
>Blair was the best thing they ever had and they blew it.

If he's the best thing they ever had then God help them.  Still, they
could pop down to any used car lot and find another Blair, if that's
what they're really after.

>No change there then, Cameron has known all along he doesn't need
>policies just bide your time and wait for Labour to push the self-
>destruct like they always do.

Brown certainly isn't popular and they need to get shut of him or
they've already lost the next election.

>> >I say again, British Prime Ministers are made, not self-made.
>>
>> Rubbish.  Who "made" Blair then?  He wouldn't have had a look-in if it
>> hadn't been for the unfortunate death of John Smith.  He was self-made
>> by the whole New Labour Project hype machine.
>
>Exactly, the right man in the right place at the right time,
>circumstance made him and that's how it should be.

It's not "circumstances" when you get together with some of your
slimey mates and cynically plot to "re-invent" a political party in
order to get yourself elected.

middlelight@googlemail.com wrote:

> allan tracy  wrote:

>>> It's all personal ambition when you get down to it.  Blair thought he
>>> was the best man to run things, which is why he put himself forward
>>> for party leader.  What's worse is that he was a bloody God botherer,
>>> so he probably thought it was His Divine Will that he be PM.

>> Yes, but he was up for the job because of circumstances it wasn't as
>> if he had been plotting John Smith's downfall.

> He saw an opportunity to get himself the top job and he took it.  When
> Brown saw that the tide of opinion had turned against Blair he did the
> same thing.  No difference, IMO.  That's what politicians do.

>>> Brown also wanted the job because he thought he was the best man to do
>>> it.  No different to Blair or anyone other PM.

>> Exactly, that was his opportunity but it wasn't to be and he should
>> have accepted the will of the party and not embarked on a campaign of
>> disloyalty for the next ten years.

> Where was he disloyal?  He served alongside Blair as chancellor for
> ten years.

PARLIAMENT (2005)

von BRAUN:
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visaged war hath smooth'd his wrinkled front;
And now, instead of mounting barded steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.

But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinish'd, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity:
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams...

>>> Naked ambition, perhaps, but there was no treachery involved.  Blair
>>> had to go, not just because Brown wanted him to, but because the rest
>>> of the Labour party had come to realise what an arrogant, egotistical,
>>> unelectable prick he had become.

>> That's rubbish everyone knows he was pushed

> Yes, but not by Brown alone.

PARLIAMENT (2008):

MILLIPEDE:
My Lord!

von BRAUN:
Ay, what's o'clock?

MILLIPEDE:
I am thus bold to put your grace in mind
Of what you promised me.

von BRAUN:
Well, but what's o'clock?

MILLIPEDE:
Upon the stroke of ten.

von BRAUN:
Well, let it strike.

MILLIPEDE:
Why let it strike?

von BRAUN:
Because that, like a Jack, thou keep'st the stroke
Betwixt thy begging and my meditation.
I am not in the giving vein to-day.

MILLIPEDE:
Why, then resolve me whether you will or no.

von BRAUN:
Tut, tut,
Thou troublest me; Iam not in the vein.

EXEUNT all but MILLIPEDE...

> Brown certainly isn't popular and they need to get shut of him or
> they've already lost the next election.

"Or"?

What about "and"?

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:59:18 +0200, abelard 
wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:50:44 +0100, Alang 
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:51:47 +0200, abelard 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:41:51 +0100, Alang 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:39:38 +0200, abelard 
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:11:06 +0100, "TTT"  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Stop fleecing the middle classes and wasting the money
>>>>>>Restore my pension
>>>>>
>>>>>how? by fleecing the middle classes?
>>>>
>>>>Wonder how many middle classes work for the state?
>>>>I regard anyone with an income more than 30000pa as middle class
>>>
>>>i'll go along...but what is your point?
>>>
>>
>>There are around 30 million people in full time employment. The
>>average salary is around 25k. How many state employees  get more than
>>30000? (Plus often early retirement and a fat pension paid for out of
>>taxes.)
>
>i don't know...i don't much care...and i can't be bothered to look
>     up the figures....
>i still don't know why you're asking....or where you're going...
>
You talk of fleecing the middle classes. I'm implying that the middle
classes are the ones predominately doing the fleecing. Unfortunately
finding a breakdown of state sector salaries is not possible yet.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:58:08 +0100, allan tracy  
 wrote:

> On 22 Aug, 19:27, Frank Booth Snr  wrote:
>> On 22 Aug, 16:05, allan tracy  wrote:> >  
>> Your continued obsession with the Labour party is noted.
>>
>> > What Brown did to Blair is unprecedented in modern history (and I'm
>> > talking the last five hundred years here).
>>
>> Erm, no. It was Blair who made the decision to go when it suited him,
>> not Brown.
>
> Does anyone, apart from Labour supporters in denial, really believe
> that?
>
> Traditional Labour has always hated Blair and the thing they hated
> most about him was that they needed him, or someone like him, to get
> elected and that still hasn't changed.
> .
> But that didn’t stop them being all delusional over Brown.
>
> Brown wasn’t electable twelve years ago so what, in their tiny little
> minds, made them believe that after ten years of him being unleashed
> on the country’s finances anything would have changed for the better.
>
> Blair new that which was why he was trying to set someone else up for
> the job but the maths were against him by then.
>
> No doubt the bile will all come out one day, suitably out of range of
> electoral damage and party loyalty i.e. after the next election.
>
> We already know that Prescott told Blair to sack him so where exactly
> does that fit in with your cosy harmonious relationship?

Do you think that the fact that his time as PM was just slightly over
ten years was just a coincidence? It was that long because the egotistical
twat wanted the history books to say that he was in power for exactly
ten years, not nine or nine and a half, but ten.

Fred X

Fred X wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:58:08 +0100, allan tracy 
>  wrote:
> 
>> On 22 Aug, 19:27, Frank Booth Snr  wrote:
>>> On 22 Aug, 16:05, allan tracy  wrote:> 
>>> > Your continued obsession with the Labour party is noted.
>>>
>>> > What Brown did to Blair is unprecedented in modern history (and I'm
>>> > talking the last five hundred years here).
>>>
>>> Erm, no. It was Blair who made the decision to go when it suited him,
>>> not Brown.
>>
>> Does anyone, apart from Labour supporters in denial, really believe
>> that?
>>
>> Traditional Labour has always hated Blair and the thing they hated
>> most about him was that they needed him, or someone like him, to get
>> elected and that still hasn't changed.
>> .
>> But that didn’t stop them being all delusional over Brown.
>>
>> Brown wasn’t electable twelve years ago so what, in their tiny little
>> minds, made them believe that after ten years of him being unleashed
>> on the country’s finances anything would have changed for the better.
>>
>> Blair new that which was why he was trying to set someone else up for
>> the job but the maths were against him by then.
>>
>> No doubt the bile will all come out one day, suitably out of range of
>> electoral damage and party loyalty i.e. after the next election.
>>
>> We already know that Prescott told Blair to sack him so where exactly
>> does that fit in with your cosy harmonious relationship?
> 
> Do you think that the fact that his time as PM was just slightly over
> ten years was just a coincidence? It was that long because the egotistical
> twat wanted the history books to say that he was in power for exactly
> ten years, not nine or nine and a half, but ten.

He wanted to stay in the office for as long as Mrs Thatcher did.