• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

General Election 2010: Forget Brown, Is It Time For Cameron To Go?

Mind you, it would give you another set of "immigrants" to whine about.

Surely even you wouldn't object to the repatronisation of thousands of Jocks Lord.

Canvey makes some excellent points about the unfairness related to England and Scotland. How can it happen? Why should people in England subsidise people in Scotland?

While millions of patients in England will still be expected to pay for vital medication, prescriptions in Scotland will be available free of charge within four years.
The move was cited as the starkest example yet of the "unfairness" of the current funding arrangement, with English taxpayers forced to pay towards improvements to health care and education available only in Scotland.
Scottish residents already have access to free eye care and dental check ups, free personal care for the elderly, extra central heating grants and a number of drugs deemed "too costly" for the National Health Service in England and Wales.
 
On the basis of no experience, New Labour shouldn't have been elected in 1997, as whichever version of Labour you want to dress them up as they had been in opposition for 18 years.

Indeed. On a related note, is it not interesting the lack of heavyweights in the current Labour government? I think this is one of the reasons Brown has lasted as long as he has.

With the exception of the omnipresent Lord Mandelson lurking over everyone's shoulder and Jack Boots Straw, the Cabinet seems to be full of nobodies like the awful Andy Burnham - I mean Harriet Harman is deputy leader for crying out loud!

Labour really can't be affording to lose people like James Purnell at the next election.

Which was precisely why Peter Hain was calling for a Progressive pact for Liberals and Welsh Nats etc to vote for Labour candidates in Labour-Tory marginals in today's Guardian.

Wow, a Labour minister calling for people to vote Labour? Whatever next?

Mind you, it would give you another set of "immigrants" to whine about.

:D

Surely even you wouldn't object to the repatronisation of thousands of Jocks Lord.

:D:D
 
I wonder how much an independent Scotland would charge for transport and docking rates for North Sea Oil, which would of course fall to them because all the rigs would be in their territorial waters.

Whatever they charge would be more than covered by the money they would need to pay the English Navy to protect the oil rigs and shipping lanes. Or we could just take them by force.
 
English Navy?

There hasn't been an English Navy since 1701. Its the British Navy. And the British Army.

So all the Scots batallions would be Scottish, and if you really want to be pedantic, most (if not all) of our naval fleet was built in Scotland by Scotsmen.
 
Whatever they charge would be more than covered by the money they would need to pay the English Navy to protect the oil rigs and shipping lanes. Or we could just take them by force.

I believe their new allies and advisers the Norwegians would probably help there . They of the Norwegian stealth navy. Also their old allies the Danes and most likley the Swedes , you'll be surprised how cosy these countries have been becoming of last few years.

Also the scots old allies the French would never take an opportunity to help out there hmm i wander ??
 
Indeed. On a related note, is it not interesting the lack of heavyweights in the current Labour government? I think this is one of the reasons Brown has lasted as long as he has.

With the exception of the omnipresent Lord Mandelson lurking over everyone's shoulder and Jack Boots Straw, the Cabinet seems to be full of nobodies like the awful Andy Burnham - I mean Harriet Harman is deputy leader for crying out loud!

Labour really can't be affording to lose people like James Purnell at the next election.

When Labour came to power in 1997 they did have some ministers of undoubted talent, 3 of them Scots, Robin Cook, Donald Dewar & George Robertson, plus Frank Field and possibly David Blunkett.

Cook resigned over Iraq, and died soon after, Dewar died in office, and Robertson buggered off to NATO when he realised he'd be fighting a losing battle at the MOD. Field was given a cabinet post to quote Blair to think the unthinkable on socail reform, and was promptly sacked by Blair soon after the election.

The balance of the cabinet have been made up of lawyers, out reach coordinators, time servers and other such no marks as Blears, Darling, Hewitt, Kelly, Byers, Milburn Buff Hoon, Reid, Prescott and Short.

This is why say we need a change of government to rid us of this time serving bunch who are sitting on their hands doing bugger all while the country goes down the gurgler.
 
When Labour came to power in 1997 they did have some ministers of undoubted talent, 3 of them Scots, Robin Cook, Donald Dewar & George Robertson, plus Frank Field and possibly David Blunkett.

Cook resigned over Iraq, and died soon after, Dewar died in office, and Robertson buggered off to NATO when he realised he'd be fighting a losing battle at the MOD. Field was given a cabinet post to quote Blair to think the unthinkable on socail reform, and was promptly sacked by Blair soon after the election.

The balance of the cabinet have been made up of lawyers, out reach coordinators, time servers and other such no marks as Blears, Darling, Hewitt, Kelly, Byers, Milburn Buff Hoon, Reid, Prescott and Short.

This is why say we need a change of government to rid us of this time serving bunch who are sitting on their hands doing bugger all while the country goes down the gurgler.

Of course there are no lawyers, out of reach co-ordinators, out of touch Old Etonians who have concept of social problems in the Tory party.

We got rid of the Tories last time for the very same reasons as you suggest we get rid of the other lot. That's one reason why I think a hung Parliament would be helpful, at least for a bit.

You quote Prescott. He really annoys me. He had some principles, spoke his mind and stood up for those he represented. Then he became Deputy PM and pretty much sold out those principles.

I deal with a lot of MPs, some aren't bad. With most it is a bit like banging your head against a brick wall. They live on a different planet to the rest of us.
 
Of course there are no lawyers, out of reach co-ordinators, out of touch Old Etonians who have concept of social problems in the Tory party.

We got rid of the Tories last time for the very same reasons as you suggest we get rid of the other lot. That's one reason why I think a hung Parliament would be helpful, at least for a bit.

You quote Prescott. He really annoys me. He had some principles, spoke his mind and stood up for those he represented. Then he became Deputy PM and pretty much sold out those principles.

I deal with a lot of MPs, some aren't bad. With most it is a bit like banging your head against a brick wall. They live on a different planet to the rest of us.

I didn't suggest that at all. And I have no particular illusion about the Tories riding to our rescue. However this government like the last years of the Major government is tired and discredited. However one thing that won't be handed to it's successor is a legacy of continued growth and money in the Treasury to work with.

I've had a few dealings with Prescott, and he is as his public persona a blustering buffoon. Why is it that so many Labour politicians spend their life railing against the system, the Lords etc, yet when the chance comes their snouts are in the trough?

I fully agree with you about MP's and them living on a different planet, I think on entering Parliament they all have some sort of lobotomy which detaches them from reality. Having said that and in agreement again there aremany good ones, the problem is they're abit like hens teeth.

It's just possible that ahung Parliament may beagood thing, we'll find out in about 90 days or so.
 
You quote Prescott. He really annoys me. He had some principles, spoke his mind and stood up for those he represented. Then he became Deputy PM and pretty much sold out those principles.

To take Prescott a stage further I'd disagee with you about how good his representation of his constituents. I lived in Hull (for my sins) on and off for a few years. While I was there I heard numerous complaints about Prescott and his absenteeism in the constituency (this was pre 1997). He lived in his fine mock tudor castle off Holderness Road, but was rarely seen at surgeries for his constituents. Unfortunately he would win election after election, as Hull East like many died in the wool areas (Labour or Tory) would never return anything other than a Labour MP.

In 1997 while I supported the change of government I could not bring myself to vote for this odious, witless buffoon and voted UKIP (or whatever Goldsmith was calling it then).
 
Wow, a Labour minister calling for people to vote Labour? Whatever next?:D:D



I think the point was that Hain was trying to appeal to tradional non-Labour voters ie Liberals and Welsh Nats -hence the Pact in the title-to vote for Labour only in Labour-Tory marginals.
It's what I'd do myself if I lived in such a UK marginal though I have very little faith in New Labour or indeed the modern day Labour Party(despite having been a lifelong Labour voter -except in the 1997 election when I used my postal vote to vote Liberal for the first time in a General Election ).:soapbox:
 
When Labour came to power in 1997 they did have some ministers of undoubted talent, 3 of them Scots, Robin Cook, Donald Dewar & George Robertson, plus Frank Field and possibly David Blunkett.

Cook resigned over Iraq, and died soon after, Dewar died in office, and Robertson buggered off to NATO when he realised he'd be fighting a losing battle at the MOD. Field was given a cabinet post to quote Blair to think the unthinkable on socail reform, and was promptly sacked by Blair soon after the election.

The balance of the cabinet have been made up of lawyers, out reach coordinators, time servers and other such no marks as Blears, Darling, Hewitt, Kelly, Byers, Milburn Buff Hoon, Reid, Prescott and Short.

This is why say we need a change of government to rid us of this time serving bunch who are sitting on their hands doing bugger all while the country goes down the gurgler.

Not sure I'd agree that all your list were necessarily no marks - the likes of Prescott and Short might not necessarily have been all that competent, but at least they had their own identity. I think Reid was considered a big-hitter as well.

The Tories have a similar problem, how much is there beyond Cameron and Osborne? Hague certainly has some stature, maybe David Davis (is he back in the Shadow Cabinet?) the rest are more or less unknown although the likes of Gove, Hammond, Lansley are talented and there are a few rising stars in people like Owen Paterson and Nick Herbert.

One of the difficulties about a coalition with the Lib Dems is finding enough talent to put in a Cabinet. Obviously there is Cable, but outside of that people would be struggling to name any Lib Dem spokesmen (incl Clegg).
 
I think the point was that Hain was trying to appeal to tradional non-Labour voters ie Liberals and Welsh Nats -hence the Pact in the title-to vote for Labour only in Labour-Tory marginals.
It's what I'd do myself if I lived in such a UK marginal though I have very little faith in New Labour or indeed the modern day Labour Party(despite having been a lifelong Labour voter -except in the 1997 election when I used my postal vote to vote Liberal for the first time in a General Election ).:soapbox:

I think the Plaid Cymru and Lib Dem voters he is trying to attract are traditional Labour voters that the party has managed to lose.
 
Not sure I'd agree that all your list were necessarily no marks - the likes of Prescott and Short might not necessarily have been all that competent, but at least they had their own identity. I think Reid was considered a big-hitter as well.

The Tories have a similar problem, how much is there beyond Cameron and Osborne? Hague certainly has some stature, maybe David Davis (is he back in the Shadow Cabinet?) the rest are more or less unknown although the likes of Gove, Hammond, Lansley are talented and there are a few rising stars in people like Owen Paterson and Nick Herbert.

One of the difficulties about a coalition with the Lib Dems is finding enough talent to put in a Cabinet. Obviously there is Cable, but outside of that people would be struggling to name any Lib Dem spokesmen (incl Clegg).

I agree that both Short & Prescott both had an identity it's their competence I'd doubt. Likewise Reid, yes a big hitter but how many government departments was he minister for? It must have been at least 5 in as many years.

The Tories do have one big hitter in Ken Clarke, plus I think Hague will be a good Foreign Secretary if the Tories are elected. Lansley & Gove seem competent enough as IMO do Grieve & Fox.

Agree again about the Lib Dems, cable is about the only recognisable name other than Clegg. Although I'd say they have some pretty decent constituency MP's.
 
Agree again about the Lib Dems, cable is about the only recognisable name other than Clegg. Although I'd say they have some pretty decent constituency MP's.

And here in lies the countries problem . We have very good constituency MP's of all Parties , yet as said once they enter Westminster (and i suspect the whips do this) they are lobotomised and or neutered. I know many here arnt a fan of a PR form of system however for any real form of change to occur, we have to find away to make this work.

The political face of democracies sways to much between faces and mask's which is propably why we have only ever voted in clowns .
 
English Navy?

There hasn't been an English Navy since 1701. Its the British Navy. And the British Army.

So all the Scots batallions would be Scottish, and if you really want to be pedantic, most (if not all) of our naval fleet was built in Scotland by Scotsmen.

Calm down brainiac, were we not addressing the relationship between England and Scotland after a split of the United Kingdom? I believe there would be an English navy then. And my telly was built by some slopehead but it's mine now.

I believe their new allies and advisers the Norwegians would probably help there . They of the Norwegian stealth navy. Also their old allies the Danes and most likley the Swedes , you'll be surprised how cosy these countries have been becoming of last few years.

Also the scots old allies the French would never take an opportunity to help out there hmm i wander ??

I'm absolutely terrified at the prospect of having to stare down the Scots, French and Scandinavians. It makes our alliance with the world's only superpower look quite inconsequential by comparison.
 
Calm down brainiac, were we not addressing the relationship between England and Scotland after a split of the United Kingdom? I believe there would be an English navy then. And my telly was built by some slopehead but it's mine now.

There would be an English Navy. There would also be a Scottish one, who would, if needs be patrol the waters around their rigs. So your point, exactly, was?
 
There would be an English Navy. There would also be a Scottish one, who would, if needs be patrol the waters around their rigs. So your point, exactly, was?

The two navies would probably be representative of the two nations. Ours would be a noble force, despite being a pale imitation of past glories, whilst the Frisps would be reliant on a drunkard in a bath tub.
 
The two navies would probably be representative of the two nations. Ours would be a noble force, despite being a pale imitation of past glories, whilst the Frisps would be reliant on a drunkard in a bath tub.

Just confirming that you don't have an argument and that you've allowed the debate to plunge into the usual rhetoric against who may be slightly different to you.
 
Just confirming that you don't have an argument and that you've allowed the debate to plunge into the usual rhetoric against who may be slightly different to you.

No, just confirming that I have a sense of humour and aim to write in a vaguely entertaining (and grammatically accurate) fashion.

And I ALWAYS have an argument. You just don't like it.
 
I'm absolutely terrified at the prospect of having to stare down the Scots, French and Scandinavians. It makes our alliance with the world's only superpower look quite inconsequential by comparison.

We're allied with China now ? Because you are aware the have the world's largest Army and Airforce (don;t think their navy's that small either )? And their economies pretty good as well (ok its mainly almost slave like and a wicked hybrid of Capitalist and Communist ideals , those Chinese taking people's ideas and making them their own grrr

But that's ok once we split with Scotland and lose the Highland regiments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Regiment_of_Scotland
which would be only a loss of say 1500-7000ish then theres the reservist's the Scots guards and the Dragoons. Plus however other members in different regiments who are Scots
 
Back
Top