How thick skinned can anyone get?

[dadyassa]

As I see it, in answer to trackrat.

LABOUR, well enough said they are a laughing stock.

TORIES. Yes they fell apart at the seams. Cameron is still an unknown and is still on probation.

LIB DEMS. Well we all know that if they had their way, the last vestiges of our sovereignty would be handed over to Europe.

GREENS. They appear to have no policies other than to drive us all out of cars onto non existent public transport, and appear to believe in NIL growth.

UKIP. I voted for them in the European elections as a protest. No way are they a viable government.

So who is there to vote for????????????????????????? You tell me.

Hoever, in all honesty I don't think that anything could be as bad as what we are suffering at present.

Go for the LIB DEMS, its lovely weather in the proper Europe B) B)

[trackrat]

dadyassa, it is lovely weather here as well. :P

[andsome]

If we had an election tomorrow I afraid it would have to - "None of the Above"

perhaps a period on anarchy would be in order ?? :P

That's what we have at present. As regards Europe, it's fine for a visit, but no way do we need to be totally ruled from Brussels. The influx of more eastern European nations is going to cost taxpayers billions and billions. I have nothing against the people from eastern Europe, in fact I have been there, but it is NOT our job to boost their economies for them.

[Thos]

My invitation to you and Thos was meant rather as a gentle chide, as you both do seem rather blind to ANY faults at all in the present set up.

The above was my statement. All that this implies is as I have already said, that whenever anything is said about this government, you are always there to offer a defence. There does not seem to be any capability to see that they could just be wrong. As I have also said, I will be happy to stand correcting on this matter if I am wrong. Surely it is plain for all to see that Labour are coming apart at the seams without any help from me or anyone else.

That is just simply not true and you know that for my part I did not even enter the debate until you mentioned my name and even then it was not as a defence of the government. Just accept that opinions other than your own are not necessarily blindness, they may even be wisdom.

Thos.

[andsome]

I am not talking necessarily about this debate. The fact remains that I cannot recall you ever accepting criticism of this government.

They are at it again this morning

[Thos]

Then let me repeat what you said .......... You are ALWAYS there etc.

I do not always offer a defence of the government. I have continually explained that of the political parties Labour come closest to my ideals in government. I have never said that everything the Labour party does or seeks to do accords with my views, but I do ask that everyone seeks both sides of a discussion. That is why I resent the arrogance of the comments of "blindness" if the point of view does not accord with yours.

Thos

[andsome]

We are just playing with words at the moment and achieving nothing. Backward and forward etc etc. Getting back on topic now, may I ask if you have any comments on the current debacle?

[catgate]

They are at it again this morning

I found this statment, from the above link, quite astounding.

Mr Clarke expressed serious doubts about the Chancellor's fitness to lead the country. "His massive weakness is that he can't work with people." He criticises the Chancellor for being excessively cautious and attempting to "micro-manage" the Government.

"He's not a risk taker and that matters, you've got to be a risk taker in politics. The courage question is a big thing for Gordon."

"you've got to be a risk taker in politics."!!!

The country is in the mess that has overtaken it in the last 40 years or so, because there have been too many risks taken. No wonder the Home Office was NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE with a man with this philosophy in charge.

[dadyassa]

If we had an election tomorrow I afraid it would have to - "None of the Above"

perhaps a period on anarchy would be in order ?? :P

That's what we have at present. As regards Europe, it's fine for a visit, but no way do we need to be totally ruled from Brussels. The influx of more eastern European nations is going to cost taxpayers billions and billions. I have nothing against the people from eastern Europe, in fact I have been there, but it is NOT our job to boost their economies for them.

I like people ...... as long as they dont have what I have and they are not as rich as me

[The Grump]

That is why I resent the arrogance of the comments of "blindness" if the point of view does not accord with yours.

An excellent comment.

Why post numerous anti government links? Do you think we are not capable of finding them for ourselves.

You are not going to change many, if any minds with your constant swarm of anti Labour links.

[andsome]

That is why I resent the arrogance of the comments of "blindness" if the point of view does not accord with yours.

An excellent comment.

Why post numerous anti government links? Do you think we are not capable of finding them for ourselves.

You are not going to change many, if any minds with your constant swarm of anti Labour links.

Are anti government links the only ones to be banned from the forum, or are all links to be banned? Links have long since been posted on the forum on numerous occasion. I was not aware that only certain types were permitted.

[The Grump]

That is why I resent the arrogance of the comments of "blindness" if the point of view does not accord with yours.

An excellent comment.

Why post numerous anti government links? Do you think we are not capable of finding them for ourselves.

You are not going to change many, if any minds with your constant swarm of anti Labour links.

Are anti government links the only ones to be banned from the forum, or are all links to be banned? Links have long since been posted on the forum on numerous occasion. I was not aware that only certain types were permitted.

Where in my post does it say that anti government links should be banned?????????

[andsome]

That is why I resent the arrogance of the comments of "blindness" if the point of view does not accord with yours.

An excellent comment.

Why post numerous anti government links? Do you think we are not capable of finding them for ourselves.

You are not going to change many, if any minds with your constant swarm of anti Labour links.

Are anti government links the only ones to be banned from the forum, or are all links to be banned? Links have long since been posted on the forum on numerous occasion. I was not aware that only certain types were permitted.

Where in my post does it say that anti government links should be banned?????????

Now you're being picky with words. The intimation was that I was doing something wrong in posting links that are anti labour. If you don't like the links don't look.

[Tankus]

heh ...see bliars begged Olmert to do a presidential style press conference in Jerusalem, I wonder who wrote olmerts opening words ... Alister Campbell ...?

But bliar cannot escape the press pack ..... Almost every question so far inculdes a reference to Blair's political weakness in the UK , (even the Israeli press )

blair now sez its disrespectful to come to Jerusalem , and discuss UK internal political matters with all that is going on in the middle east

gotta laugh

[Thos]

We are just playing with words at the moment and achieving nothing. Backward and forward etc etc. Getting back on topic now, may I ask if you have any comments on the current debacle?

Your desire to overlook the implications of your comments is understandable but does you no credit

I did comment in post no 15 above but perhaps in your anxiety to score political points you overlooked that. To carry that forward I think that it is now clear why Tony Blair wanted to avoid laying down a timetable. He knew that the succession fight for the Labour leadership would burst out into the open. It has done making clear his error last year of saying he would not stand for a fourth term.

Thos.

I found this statment, from the above link, quite astounding.

Mr Clarke expressed serious doubts about the Chancellor's fitness to lead the country. "His massive weakness is that he can't work with people." He criticises the Chancellor for being excessively cautious and attempting to "micro-manage" the Government.

"He's not a risk taker and that matters, you've got to be a risk taker in politics. The courage question is a big thing for Gordon."

"you've got to be a risk taker in politics."!!!

The country is in the mess that has overtaken it in the last 40 years or so, because there have been too many risks taken. No wonder the Home Office was NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE with a man with this philosophy in charge.

I, too, find it astonishing that a man who held one of the great Departments of State should hold and propound that view. I cannot conceive that the will be any come back for that man.

Thos.

[catgate]

"you've got to be a risk taker in politics."!!!

How widely held is this view, and how far up the tree?

[AlanHo]

This thread has become a rather pointless and unseemly squabble between respected members of the forum who seem desperate to win the argument - no matter at what cost. It will run on and on - until we get to the point of pistols at dawn.

We all hold views on political matters - some take every opportunity of preaching to the converted, some are too quick to defend the indefensible and others use politics as a tool to generate an argument for arguings sake. However - all such extremists ignore the fact that there are young and more gullible members of the forum, like myself, who may be deluded into thinking that this is the normal way of expressing political beliefs.

Do we really have to ask Blair to visit and use his venerable mediation skills to close the thread.

Shame innit.

(Hopefully, I will have sufficiently incensed both sides of the argument to deflect the attacks in my direction - it would be the best thing really - because I can take it - having been insulted by experts on many occasions) ;)

[Thos]

(Hopefully, I will have sufficiently incensed both sides of the argument to deflect the attacks in my direction - it would be the best thing really - because I can take it - having been insulted by experts on many occasions) ;)

I see no reason to attack you, AlanHo, what you say and the opinions you hold. Unless you say I am rather blind if I do not agree with you. :P

Thos.

[andsome]

I agree with Alan. The debate has become an argument over who said what, and what was intended by what was said. I will therefor close it. If anyone has a sensible point to put that is on topic please contact me.