alchresearch Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 Fancy that: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9205016/How-Burma-benefits-David-Camerons-mother-in-law-Viscountess-Astor.html That's a pretty lame link. It states the company has been trading with Burma without any issues since 2008. So anything Cameron did won't affect them in the slightest, unless they move from furniture to anything on the embargo list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 Heaven forbid anyone being related to somebody who has a business that buys things from somewhere to sell to someone else somewhere else. What a scandal that would be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 I've just listened to a podcast of Desert Island Discs where John Prescott was the guest. It was very interesting and I think he was probably one of the last old style Labour politicians. I am not sure if you think that's a good thing or a bad thing. Lord Prescott was certainly a character but he sold out as soon as he got a sniff of real power......................as did Blunkett, Betts, Caborn and all the rest of the Champagne Marxists. As I have said many times before Old Labour are unelectable and New Labour are also unelectable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 Heaven forbid anyone being related to somebody who has a business that buys things from somewhere to sell to someone else somewhere else. What a scandal that would be! This thread is not a discussion. This thread is an invitation for all the loons to agree with Balpin that they don't like Cameron. Facts and alternate opinions are not required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 I am not sure if you think that's a good thing or a bad thing. Lord Prescott was certainly a character but he sold out as soon as he got a sniff of real power......................as did Blunkett, Betts, Caborn and all the rest of the Champagne Marxists. As I have said many times before Old Labour are unelectable and New Labour are also unelectable. I should have probably explained better. He was a secondary school boy from a working class family. who worked in a working class job and moved into politics via union activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 I should have probably explained better. He was a secondary school boy from a working class family. who worked in a working class job and moved into politics via union activities. He wasn't one of the posh kids who went to a private school, university and then joined Labour as a researcher like so many do today. He was supposed to be one of the leadership's contact with the true working class and unions but he blew it with the Two Jags tag, the affairs and then the seat in the Lords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anarchon Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 It is a little puzzling that a party can have 1,200,000 more votes than the previous government, yet not win; It makes you wonder if there was some manipulation of the boundaries by the previous government, after all corruption was prevalent under the last government. Parliamentary constituency boundaries are reviewed every 5 years by the UK Boundary Commission - an independent body. Governments have no influence over it unless they legislate (as the Coalition have currently done to reduce the number of Commons seats to 600). It's fair to say that Labour has a current inherent bias in the way that the constituency boundaries are drawn up. Don't forget, constituency boundaries are drawn according to population figures - hence the concentration of constituencies in urban areas (usually Labour voting) as opposed to shire and rural areas (usually Tory voting). The problem with the Tory constituencies is that their safe seats usually return huge thumping majorities, which partly explains why they can have overall more votes and yet still not gain an overall majority in the House of Commons because they haven't won enough seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Sky News reports that the US have eased sanctions against Burma and an Ambassador is to return to the country. I wonder if Balpin also considers this "pathetic". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Sky News reports that the US have eased sanctions against Burma and an Ambassador is to return to the country. I wonder if Balpin also considers this "pathetic". Cameron did a good thing going to Burma to support fledgeling democracy but let's hope he doesn't turn into another Blair, more interested in strutting the international stage committing the UK to foolhardy projects for future personal gain rather than dealing with the problems at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexikia Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17698526 Can he disgrace us any more, or become more pathetic. He is now trying to bask in this glorious lady's light. She must be laughing at him. The things she has done, and the punishment she has taken, for her country would never have entered his empty head. He is a disgrace, worse than Blair, and Thatcher, put together in the way he has humiliated us. Grow up, no alternative, do you really want mr Bean lookalike to run this country further in the the s***. Give the man a chance to sort the crap Labour left us in.:loopy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.