Re: Red Ed : Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:07 am  

Kosh wrote:

As you well know, I was no fan of the previous administration and didn't vote for them. The current lot are doing no better and, in many instances, worse. Osbourne is the most economically illiterate chancellor I can remember in my lifetime, and his cabinet colleagues (both Tory and Lib Dem) aren't much better.

I wasn't 'bleating' as you so maturely put it. I was reacting with amused disdain to your completely one-eyed assertion that only Labour were capable of damaging the country when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Sadly I'm not at all surprised by your knee-jerkery when challenged.

no, you'd have the Lib Dems sell our soul to Europe, and that would have been so much better, wouldn't it?

Re: Red Ed : Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:24 am  

ROBINSON wrote:

... In a leader, these days, you basically need a salesman, whilst all the real policitians do the work behind the scenes.

Unfortunately that is true, the electorate does seem to prefer snake-oil.
But it doesn't just require a salesman to keep it going, it also requires a vision (of some sort), substantial back-up within the party and Machiavellian managerial expertise to keep it running.

That's where Cameron is winning it at the moment, he has packaged-up his "rolling back the state and sod the lot of you" as "The Big Society".
Only a minority bought it ... but Cameron got lucky because Cleggy a) hated Brown and b) was weak-willed (or stupid) enough to join a "coalition" where the main point of agreement is that Cleggy doesn't do a runner.
Then Cameron stuffed his cabinet with his cabal of hoorays (don't want any of that oiky "conscience" nonsense) to keep it steady as she goes... and bingo, just keep lying to the electorate and Bob's your uncle.

[Kosh]

Re: Red Ed : Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:24 am  

Standee wrote:

no, you'd have the Lib Dems sell our soul to Europe, and that would have been so much better, wouldn't it?

Sell our soul?

We'd have been no worse off under a Lib Dem administration. Whether we'd have been much better off is open to question but we'd have avoided some of the more odious policies to come out of the 'coalition'. And we'd have avoided alienating our largest trading partner for no actual benefit to the country.

Re: Red Ed : Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:27 am  

Kosh wrote:

Sell our soul?

We'd have been no worse off under a Lib Dem administration. Whether we'd have been much better off is open to question but we'd have avoided some of the more odious policies to come out of the 'coalition'. And we'd have avoided alienating our largest trading partner for no actual benefit to the country.

yes, because all exports to Europe have stopped, haven't they?

anyway, we'll never agree on politics, because I didn't chose to have children and then expect everyone else to help me pay their way.

Re: Red Ed : Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:27 am  

Standee wrote:

no, you'd have the Lib Dems sell our soul to Europe, and that would have been so much better, wouldn't it?

You'd have pulled out then ... and that would have been so much better wouldn't it?
Blind Euroscepticism is so easy, all it needs is a touch of xenophobia and no actual thinking.

Re: Red Ed : Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:30 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

You'd have pulled out then ... and that would have been so much better wouldn't it?
Blind Euroscepticism is so easy.

not at all, I'd be engaged at the very heart of Europe, but only on the things we can actually have comonality over, certain things are sovereign and certain things can be joint and several. Our relationship with Europe needs redefining, but it certainly doesn't need "cancelling"

we are on the right path, once we get the public sector down to the right level, cut the unnecessary legislation that Labour brought in and get us moving we'll be fine, it will just take time and some people will feel pain along the way.

Re: Red Ed : Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:38 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

Unfortunately that is true, the electorate does seem to prefer snake-oil.
But it doesn't just require a salesman to keep it going, it also requires a vision (of some sort), substantial back-up within the party and Machiavellian managerial expertise to keep it running.

That's where Cameron is winning it at the moment, he has packaged-up his "rolling back the state and sod the lot of you" as "The Big Society".
Only a minority bought it ... but Cameron got lucky because Cleggy a) hated Brown and b) was weak-willed (or stupid) enough to join a "coalition" where the main point of agreement is that Cleggy doesn't do a runner.
Then Cameron stuffed his cabinet with his cabal of hoorays (don't want any of that oiky "conscience" nonsense) to keep it steady as she goes... and bingo, just keep lying to the electorate and Bob's your uncle.

You'd make a great novelist.

Re: Red Ed : Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:40 am  

Standee wrote:

not at all, I'd be engaged at the very heart of Europe, but only on the things we can actually have comonality over, certain things are sovereign and certain things can be joint and several. Our relationship with Europe needs redefining, but it certainly doesn't need "cancelling"

Hallelujah, some common sense.

It appears to me that, where trade is concerned, it is only interested in the member states trading amongst themselves, with 'Europe' trading with people outside of it. I really don't like that idea.

Personally I don't see why we can't trade with whoever we can forge trade links with. Why should we be compelled to go to Europe over the United States or of the Commonwealth?

Re: Red Ed : Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:50 am  

Standee wrote:

yes, because all exports to Europe have stopped, haven't they?

anyway, we'll never agree on politics, because I didn't chose to have children and then expect everyone else to help me pay their way.

Bleedin' hell – that's a poor excuse even by your standard of finding yourself backed into a corner after making a big, knee-jerk about the previous government and then finding it gets picked to pieces easily.

And plenty of people decide not to have children. They just don't all pretend that makes them into some form of superior being because they judge others for daring not to be able to plan for every possible eventually that may happen to them a decade or more down the line.

Re: Red Ed : Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:52 am  

ROBINSON wrote:

... Why should we be compelled to go to Europe over the United States or of the Commonwealth?

Yes, because we don't trade with either of those entities – and that's because the nasty EU stops us.

Can we assume you've never actually heard of anything like NAFTA?