|
On April 20 2010 23:54 KwarK wrote:
You make a good point but Scotland never had the dual party dominance England did. Third parties have been more viable historically in Scotland because of the SNP.
Are you joking? If Scottish politics didn't have a dual party dominance, it was because it was overwhelmingly a one-party (Labour) nation for years on end, and that was never, ever, challenged until the Scottish Parliament came along.
Under FPTP (the only way of doing electoral politics until 1999), Labour has held an absolute majority of Scottish seats in Westminister since forever ago, and still does, and no other party has come close. The SNP currently has 7 seats at Westminister (the most it has ever had is 11, in 1974, when there were something like 72 seats in total), yet it's the largest party in the Scottish Parliament now.
The knowledge of the man on the street is something I have very little faith in when the Mail is the most popular broadsheet and the Sun is bigger than all the non mail broadsheets (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, FT) combined. People don't know and they don't care. Half of them don't even vote.
I don't vote, and I don't consider myself to be ill-informed or apathetic. (I do make at least as much effort as the median voter, in that I do turn up on polling day and spoil that ballot paper in protest). I don't believe anybody's vote is statistically likely to change anything, even in a marginal seat(I'm in an ultra-safe Lib Dem seat anyways, making it a statistical impossibility), and even if I did, a constituency MP has little or no power to change anything. Even changing governments doesn't do much - you've said yourself about how all three parties have an ideological consensus these days - meaning that the electable politicians basically agree on everything, and that what we're left with, in an election, is a Mickey-Mouse choice of picking which ones get to do what they're told - by the businses classes, or the civil service, or the European bureaucrats, or <insert your favoured shady conspirators here> - for another four years.
|
United States43815 Posts
On April 21 2010 00:19 DexterHGTourney wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 00:15 XeliN wrote:
Live debates don't really achieve much, they show who is the better rhetorician sure but in terms of actual policies, or the competency of any of the parties.I mean take this first debate as an example, I know at the back of my mind how exceptionally useless they are and not a good basis to make a political descision yet I'm still going to vote for the guy who I felt came across better in it based on little to nothing other than that. Typing this out is almost making me change my mind.. Be careful on that assessment. Of course debates don't really matter when those engaged in debate pretty much agree on 98% of the items. When you have a diverse philosophical divide and a principled Statesman debates are awesome (See: Ron Paul). I bet if you had the LPUK in that debate and they brought up abolishing the Income Tax that would be a healthy debate, for example. (In other words, debates are a great way to influence and elevate the dialogue and policy.) Aren't people tired of freaking wedge issues?
And I bet if we had some other irrelevant loonies in there there would be a lot of healthy debate. We could bring in some Islamic Supremacists and put them with Zionists and see what would happen. Maybe get some PETA nutjobs in there for a laugh too. But I think it's probably better that we keep politics between people who aren't complete whackos.
LPUK has no base of support, no members of Parliament, the Jedi have more right to be there. They are not politicians. Politicians are people who practice politics, not people who stay at home and wish they didn't believe in some outmoded system that everyone else mocked or ignored.
|
On April 21 2010 00:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 00:19 DexterHGTourney wrote:On April 21 2010 00:15 XeliN wrote:
Live debates don't really achieve much, they show who is the better rhetorician sure but in terms of actual policies, or the competency of any of the parties.I mean take this first debate as an example, I know at the back of my mind how exceptionally useless they are and not a good basis to make a political descision yet I'm still going to vote for the guy who I felt came across better in it based on little to nothing other than that. Typing this out is almost making me change my mind.. Be careful on that assessment. Of course debates don't really matter when those engaged in debate pretty much agree on 98% of the items. When you have a diverse philosophical divide and a principled Statesman debates are awesome (See: Ron Paul). I bet if you had the LPUK in that debate and they brought up abolishing the Income Tax that would be a healthy debate, for example. (In other words, debates are a great way to influence and elevate the dialogue and policy.) Aren't people tired of freaking wedge issues? And I bet if we had some other irrelevant loonies in there there would be a lot of healthy debate. We could bring in some Islamic Supremacists and put them with Zionists and see what would happen. Maybe get some PETA nutjobs in there for a laugh too. But I think it's probably better that we keep politics between people who aren't complete whackos. LPUK has no base of support, no members of Parliament, the Jedi have more right to be there. They are not politicians. Politicians are people who practice politics, not people who stay at home and wish they didn't believe in some outmoded system that everyone else mocked or ignored.
:: rollseyes ::
|
United States43815 Posts
Spoiling your ballot is still a vote, it's a political expression and given the irrelevance of voting, no worse than any other. I have no problem with ballot spoilers.
|
United States43815 Posts
On April 21 2010 00:28 DexterHGTourney wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 00:28 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2010 00:19 DexterHGTourney wrote:On April 21 2010 00:15 XeliN wrote:
Live debates don't really achieve much, they show who is the better rhetorician sure but in terms of actual policies, or the competency of any of the parties.I mean take this first debate as an example, I know at the back of my mind how exceptionally useless they are and not a good basis to make a political descision yet I'm still going to vote for the guy who I felt came across better in it based on little to nothing other than that. Typing this out is almost making me change my mind.. Be careful on that assessment. Of course debates don't really matter when those engaged in debate pretty much agree on 98% of the items. When you have a diverse philosophical divide and a principled Statesman debates are awesome (See: Ron Paul). I bet if you had the LPUK in that debate and they brought up abolishing the Income Tax that would be a healthy debate, for example. (In other words, debates are a great way to influence and elevate the dialogue and policy.) Aren't people tired of freaking wedge issues? And I bet if we had some other irrelevant loonies in there there would be a lot of healthy debate. We could bring in some Islamic Supremacists and put them with Zionists and see what would happen. Maybe get some PETA nutjobs in there for a laugh too. But I think it's probably better that we keep politics between people who aren't complete whackos. LPUK has no base of support, no members of Parliament, the Jedi have more right to be there. They are not politicians. Politicians are people who practice politics, not people who stay at home and wish they didn't believe in some outmoded system that everyone else mocked or ignored. :: rollseyes ::
Even if you agree with their views you cannot believe they are a force in British politics. You'd make more sense if you argued that Obama should be able to speak up for the Democrats at the debate, he'd have more chance of winning a seat in the general election. Libertarians have absolutely nothing to do with British politics and this topic is about British politics, if you wish to talk about them, take it elsewhere.
|
On April 21 2010 00:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 00:28 DexterHGTourney wrote:On April 21 2010 00:28 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2010 00:19 DexterHGTourney wrote:On April 21 2010 00:15 XeliN wrote:
Live debates don't really achieve much, they show who is the better rhetorician sure but in terms of actual policies, or the competency of any of the parties.I mean take this first debate as an example, I know at the back of my mind how exceptionally useless they are and not a good basis to make a political descision yet I'm still going to vote for the guy who I felt came across better in it based on little to nothing other than that. Typing this out is almost making me change my mind.. Be careful on that assessment. Of course debates don't really matter when those engaged in debate pretty much agree on 98% of the items. When you have a diverse philosophical divide and a principled Statesman debates are awesome (See: Ron Paul). I bet if you had the LPUK in that debate and they brought up abolishing the Income Tax that would be a healthy debate, for example. (In other words, debates are a great way to influence and elevate the dialogue and policy.) Aren't people tired of freaking wedge issues? And I bet if we had some other irrelevant loonies in there there would be a lot of healthy debate. We could bring in some Islamic Supremacists and put them with Zionists and see what would happen. Maybe get some PETA nutjobs in there for a laugh too. But I think it's probably better that we keep politics between people who aren't complete whackos. LPUK has no base of support, no members of Parliament, the Jedi have more right to be there. They are not politicians. Politicians are people who practice politics, not people who stay at home and wish they didn't believe in some outmoded system that everyone else mocked or ignored. :: rollseyes :: Even if you agree with their views you cannot believe they are a force in British politics. You'd make more sense if you argued that Obama should be able to speak up for the Democrats at the debate, he'd have more chance of winning a seat in the general election. Libertarians have absolutely nothing to do with British politics and this topic is about British politics, if you wish to talk about them, take it elsewhere.
Please show me where I even remotely expressed this viewpoint. Obviously you don't need to tell me the obvious:
![[image loading]](http://www.synthstuff.com/mt/archives/orwell-watchfuleyes.jpg)
|
I've taken the time to read this whole thread and I'm curious; has anyone changed their mind on who to vote as a result of this thread?
|
United States43815 Posts
On April 21 2010 00:32 DexterHGTourney wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 00:31 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2010 00:28 DexterHGTourney wrote:On April 21 2010 00:28 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2010 00:19 DexterHGTourney wrote:On April 21 2010 00:15 XeliN wrote:
Live debates don't really achieve much, they show who is the better rhetorician sure but in terms of actual policies, or the competency of any of the parties.I mean take this first debate as an example, I know at the back of my mind how exceptionally useless they are and not a good basis to make a political descision yet I'm still going to vote for the guy who I felt came across better in it based on little to nothing other than that. Typing this out is almost making me change my mind.. Be careful on that assessment. Of course debates don't really matter when those engaged in debate pretty much agree on 98% of the items. When you have a diverse philosophical divide and a principled Statesman debates are awesome (See: Ron Paul). I bet if you had the LPUK in that debate and they brought up abolishing the Income Tax that would be a healthy debate, for example. (In other words, debates are a great way to influence and elevate the dialogue and policy.) Aren't people tired of freaking wedge issues? And I bet if we had some other irrelevant loonies in there there would be a lot of healthy debate. We could bring in some Islamic Supremacists and put them with Zionists and see what would happen. Maybe get some PETA nutjobs in there for a laugh too. But I think it's probably better that we keep politics between people who aren't complete whackos. LPUK has no base of support, no members of Parliament, the Jedi have more right to be there. They are not politicians. Politicians are people who practice politics, not people who stay at home and wish they didn't believe in some outmoded system that everyone else mocked or ignored. :: rollseyes :: Even if you agree with their views you cannot believe they are a force in British politics. You'd make more sense if you argued that Obama should be able to speak up for the Democrats at the debate, he'd have more chance of winning a seat in the general election. Libertarians have absolutely nothing to do with British politics and this topic is about British politics, if you wish to talk about them, take it elsewhere. Please show me where I even remotely expressed this viewpoint.
On April 21 2010 00:19 DexterHGTourney wrote:
I bet if you had the LPUK
I was under the assumption you thought the debate should be between relevant people. If we're just throwing anyone in there for fun then I'd go for a showdown between Mike Tyson and Sylvester Stallone as Rambo.
|
On April 21 2010 00:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 00:32 DexterHGTourney wrote:On April 21 2010 00:31 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2010 00:28 DexterHGTourney wrote:On April 21 2010 00:28 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2010 00:19 DexterHGTourney wrote:On April 21 2010 00:15 XeliN wrote:
Live debates don't really achieve much, they show who is the better rhetorician sure but in terms of actual policies, or the competency of any of the parties.I mean take this first debate as an example, I know at the back of my mind how exceptionally useless they are and not a good basis to make a political descision yet I'm still going to vote for the guy who I felt came across better in it based on little to nothing other than that. Typing this out is almost making me change my mind.. Be careful on that assessment. Of course debates don't really matter when those engaged in debate pretty much agree on 98% of the items. When you have a diverse philosophical divide and a principled Statesman debates are awesome (See: Ron Paul). I bet if you had the LPUK in that debate and they brought up abolishing the Income Tax that would be a healthy debate, for example. (In other words, debates are a great way to influence and elevate the dialogue and policy.) Aren't people tired of freaking wedge issues? And I bet if we had some other irrelevant loonies in there there would be a lot of healthy debate. We could bring in some Islamic Supremacists and put them with Zionists and see what would happen. Maybe get some PETA nutjobs in there for a laugh too. But I think it's probably better that we keep politics between people who aren't complete whackos. LPUK has no base of support, no members of Parliament, the Jedi have more right to be there. They are not politicians. Politicians are people who practice politics, not people who stay at home and wish they didn't believe in some outmoded system that everyone else mocked or ignored. :: rollseyes :: Even if you agree with their views you cannot believe they are a force in British politics. You'd make more sense if you argued that Obama should be able to speak up for the Democrats at the debate, he'd have more chance of winning a seat in the general election. Libertarians have absolutely nothing to do with British politics and this topic is about British politics, if you wish to talk about them, take it elsewhere. Please show me where I even remotely expressed this viewpoint. I was under the assumption you thought the debate should be between relevant people. If we're just throwing anyone in there for fun then I'd go for a showdown between Mike Tyson and Sylvester Stallone as Rambo.
Do you just ramble from one strawman mischaracterization to the next, with intent, or is it just the natural character of KwarK?
Yes, if Classical Liberalism IE Libertarianism had a voice in a debate it would certainly elevate the discourse and dialogue. Have to look no further than the 2007 GOP debates. I never even hinted that the LPUK was any sort of force in British Politics. And your insinuation that Classical Liberalism is as far fetched as Jedi's, Rambo, Tyson, ad absurdum is hilarious, not for the fact that it is so out-landish, but just goes to show if you are any indication of the average Brit, you guys are royally fucked.
Enjoy your CCTV :p
|
United States43815 Posts
On April 21 2010 00:43 DexterHGTourney wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 00:37 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2010 00:32 DexterHGTourney wrote:On April 21 2010 00:31 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2010 00:28 DexterHGTourney wrote:On April 21 2010 00:28 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2010 00:19 DexterHGTourney wrote:On April 21 2010 00:15 XeliN wrote:
Live debates don't really achieve much, they show who is the better rhetorician sure but in terms of actual policies, or the competency of any of the parties.I mean take this first debate as an example, I know at the back of my mind how exceptionally useless they are and not a good basis to make a political descision yet I'm still going to vote for the guy who I felt came across better in it based on little to nothing other than that. Typing this out is almost making me change my mind.. Be careful on that assessment. Of course debates don't really matter when those engaged in debate pretty much agree on 98% of the items. When you have a diverse philosophical divide and a principled Statesman debates are awesome (See: Ron Paul). I bet if you had the LPUK in that debate and they brought up abolishing the Income Tax that would be a healthy debate, for example. (In other words, debates are a great way to influence and elevate the dialogue and policy.) Aren't people tired of freaking wedge issues? And I bet if we had some other irrelevant loonies in there there would be a lot of healthy debate. We could bring in some Islamic Supremacists and put them with Zionists and see what would happen. Maybe get some PETA nutjobs in there for a laugh too. But I think it's probably better that we keep politics between people who aren't complete whackos. LPUK has no base of support, no members of Parliament, the Jedi have more right to be there. They are not politicians. Politicians are people who practice politics, not people who stay at home and wish they didn't believe in some outmoded system that everyone else mocked or ignored. :: rollseyes :: Even if you agree with their views you cannot believe they are a force in British politics. You'd make more sense if you argued that Obama should be able to speak up for the Democrats at the debate, he'd have more chance of winning a seat in the general election. Libertarians have absolutely nothing to do with British politics and this topic is about British politics, if you wish to talk about them, take it elsewhere. Please show me where I even remotely expressed this viewpoint. On April 21 2010 00:19 DexterHGTourney wrote:
I bet if you had the LPUK I was under the assumption you thought the debate should be between relevant people. If we're just throwing anyone in there for fun then I'd go for a showdown between Mike Tyson and Sylvester Stallone as Rambo. Do you just ramble from one strawman mischaracterization to the next, with intent, or is it just the natural character of KwarK? Yes, if Classical Liberalism IE Libertarianism had a voice in a debate it would certainly elevate the discourse and dialogue. Have to look no further than the 2007 GOP debates. I never even hinted that the LPUK was any sort of force in British Politics. And your insinuation that Classical Liberalism is as far fetched as Jedi's, Rambo, Tyson, ad absurdum is hilarious, not for the fact that it is so out-landish, but just goes to show if you are any indication of the average Brit, you guys are royally fucked. Enjoy your CCTV :p
Actually census results indicate that there are almost 400,000 Jedi living in Britain compared to 1000 or so Libertarians. So my comparison to the Jedi was not only perfectly valid but goes to show how utterly irrelevant Libertarianism is. You suggested bringing Libertarians into the debate. I pointed out they were irrelevant. You said it didn't matter if they were irrelevant, it'd still be entertaining. I pointed out that if you want entertainment rather than political debate then you might as well turn the entire thing into a fight. You bitched some.
Political debate should be between politicians.
LPUK has no politicians in it.
Therefore they have no place in a political debate.
The entertainment argument doesn't make any sense.
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
Let's try and keep this civil.
|
Personally i think its a true but sad reflection on British society that can make a party jump 10% in the polls after a single debate with the leader on certain issues. When you actually look at the liberal policies they are a bit.. lacking to say the least:
(list of polices i don't like)
+ Show Spoiler +- On Immigration and race issues: "name blanking" policy on job applications to cut discrimination, i mean this is just stupid, this serves no purpose what so ever and will not stop discrimination, businesses discriminate by definition, thats what interviews are for, they judge your character, whether fairly or not, and add that as weight on top of your qualifications to determine whether you got the job, this policy would only make sense if employers only hired on the basis of qualifications.
- On Defense: Cutting Trident and setting up a Parliament with semi-Tabliban control, in the current climate i really don't see how we can afford to get rid of anti-nuclear defense, also the alternatives they talk about would surely cost money, while trident is a case of renewing it, the actual program is already set up and partly paid for, so what grantee is there that the alternative would be any cheaper? and effective? And as for setting up a Tabilan government is just ludicrous, i'm not saying i support the war in Afghanistan but to use our power to put in a Taliban government is just insane! How is this a sensible solution, we should finish what we started and at least put in a democratic non Muslim extremist government, although i expect it would be a weak one and there will be fighting in Afghanistan long after we've withdrawn troops.
- On Health: introduce "patient contracts" specifying what patients can expect from NHS, this is just adding red tape and making it worse for doctors to do their job, imagine what kind of power this could give to those who want to take their grief out on doctors by suing them, which is what this would do from what i understand (correct me if im wrong). extend access to end-of-life services and hospices, well personally i don't agree with this, but on a non personal level it's still a slippery slope, and i think a lot of the general public would disagree with this.
- On Education: scrap university tuition fees over six years, don't think this is really sensible, already too many people going to university for no reason and getting themselves in debt, imagine if they could put that debt on tax payers(i know we used to have this system but it's just unnecessary government spending)
- On Green energy: Aim for a 40% reduction in greenhouse gases emissions by 2020, rising to 100% by 2050, oppose new nuclear power plants. WHAT?!?!? Can someone explain to me how these two policies are possible unless we discover the key to achievable and affordable fusion energy buy 2050?
Also they oppose commercial growing of GM crops, don't see why if they are tested as safe? and there EU policy is basically to bend over backwards to Europe and eventually change to the euro, i don't really agree with this either, we should use our political power to get more out of Europe like France has and like Margret thatcher did. As for the euro, meh i guess it could be good, i don't know enough about economics to make a judgment on what effect this would have so.
I actually like some of their other polices but some of the ones i mentioned above are to bad IMO for me to seriously consider voting for them.
I'd like to see a reform that would keep FPTP but also a second vote for some sort of president/party/prime-minster, who would have x amount of votes in the house of commons, to basically reduce the chance of getting a hung parliament and allow people to vote for their local mp they like and the party they like. I mean where i live i like the lib dem MP we have and want to vote for him, but i want to vote for the conservatives as a party, despite the fact i don't like the local conservative mp. Also i don't like the idea of an elected house of lords, just removes the point, as i saw it anyways, of the house of lords, which is to put a non politically charged veto onto government.
Personally i hate most of the labour front bench + Mandelson with a passion, they are mostly morons, while some of the conservatives like Kenith Clark and William Hague are pretty intelligent, although im not a massive fan of Cameron and Theresa May. Unfortunately most people don't vote on the competence of the current party, most people vote on prejudices, like there are some Scottish and inner city northerners will never vote tory because Thatcher "took all our jerbs" or they see them as the party for the "rich snobs". And there will be upper-middle class that will never vote labour because their parents always voted tory and then lib dems will always get the populist/student vote.
Meh that's my thoughts anyways.
|
I can't see one justifiable reason for a trident misile defence system, in the event of attack we would, or I do not think we should, retaliate with nuclear weapons, the fact we have them deters absolutely nothing and generally they are a massive waste of money.
|
United States43815 Posts
On April 21 2010 02:55 XeliN wrote:
I can't see one justifiable reason for a trident misile defence system, in the event of attack we would, or I do not think we should, retaliate with nuclear weapons, the fact we have them deters absolutely nothing and generally they are a massive waste of money.
The French currently have a bigger and better fleet than us and you want to scrap some more subs? Dying inside here.
|
On April 21 2010 02:55 XeliN wrote:
I can't see one justifiable reason for a trident misile defence system, in the event of attack we would, or I do not think we should, retaliate with nuclear weapons, the fact we have them deters absolutely nothing and generally they are a massive waste of money.
Yeah, I don't see how someone can make a statement like "in the current climate i really don't see how we can afford to get rid of anti-nuclear defense" when only a few weeks ago the United States and Russia signed a treaty designed specifically to do that.
What makes the UK more in need of nuclear arms than Russia and the U.S.? It's a complete waste of money.
|
On April 21 2010 03:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 02:55 XeliN wrote:
I can't see one justifiable reason for a trident misile defence system, in the event of attack we would, or I do not think we should, retaliate with nuclear weapons, the fact we have them deters absolutely nothing and generally they are a massive waste of money. The French currently have a bigger and better fleet than us and you want to scrap some more subs? Dying inside here. If only you knew the amount of time I have spend playing a Hearts of Iron 2\3 game as Germany, utterly refusing to allow the UK to go unchallenged in the Atlantic. I've got to scrape by on my airforce and army to have enough industrial power left over to build an ahistoric number of battleships? IM GOING TO DO IT. Hitler was a damn fool for stopping at two partially useless Bismarcks.
I love navies.
|
United States43815 Posts
On April 21 2010 03:01 Chrustler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 02:55 XeliN wrote:
I can't see one justifiable reason for a trident misile defence system, in the event of attack we would, or I do not think we should, retaliate with nuclear weapons, the fact we have them deters absolutely nothing and generally they are a massive waste of money. Yeah, I don't see how someone can make a statement like "in the current climate i really don't see how we can afford to get rid of anti-nuclear defense" when only a few weeks ago the United States and Russia signed a treaty designed specifically to do that. What makes the UK more in need of nuclear arms than Russia and the U.S.? It's a complete waste of money.
Our nuclear arsenal is incredibly small, tiny far beyond what the US and Russia are proposing cutting back to. Saying "in this climate we don't need 10, look, the US is cutting back to 1000" doesn't entirely follow.
That said, it has no military purpose and as long as we're in NATO it will not. But times change and it'd be shit to have to restart a nuclear project from scratch. It's a waste of money but I've seen worse wastes and I expect the running costs are considerably lower than the cost of stopping it then restarting it a decade down the line.
|
On April 21 2010 03:01 Chrustler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 02:55 XeliN wrote:
I can't see one justifiable reason for a trident misile defence system, in the event of attack we would, or I do not think we should, retaliate with nuclear weapons, the fact we have them deters absolutely nothing and generally they are a massive waste of money. Yeah, I don't see how someone can make a statement like "in the current climate i really don't see how we can afford to get rid of anti-nuclear defense" when only a few weeks ago the United States and Russia signed a treaty designed specifically to do that. What makes the UK more in need of nuclear arms than Russia and the U.S.? It's a complete waste of money.
I didn't say they were in more need than the US and Russia. And the treaty doesn't get rid of nuclear arms totally, your putting it out of context. The point of the US Russia disarmament was that they have massive nuclear stock piles from the cold war designed to be used on each other, which since the cold war is basically over aren't needed any more, it is nothing to do with totally getting rid of all nuclear deterrents for protection against Iran and N.Korea which is essentially what Trident is for.
|
I like to think Blair had a "yes minister" moment when he walked into 10 downing street.
Blair: "right then, first things first lets cancel trident!"
Minister: "ummm, sorry to have to tell you this but Trident was canceled 20 years ago"
Blair: "What?!"
Minister: "yeah, we've been spending the money on the Army for years, no-one will ever know"
Blair: "Dam, I guess I'll have to tell the public"
Minister: "Don't be daft it's essentially a giant bluff anyway. An invisible sub we were never going to use, it's as useful now as it ever was!"
|
United States43815 Posts
On April 21 2010 03:15 Klive5ive wrote:
I like to think Blair had a "yes minister" moment when he walked into 10 downing street.
Blair: "right then, first things first lets cancel trident!"
Minister: "ummm, sorry to have to tell you this but Trident was canceled 20 years ago"
Blair: "What?!"
Minister: "yeah, we've been spending the money on the Army for years, no-one will ever know"
Blair: "Dam, I guess I'll have to tell the public"
Minister: "Don't be daft it's essentially a giant bluff anyway. An invisible sub we were never going to use, it's as useful now as it ever was!"
First thought: Brilliant, but they'd have to make sure nobody ever found out.
Second thought: My God...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
