uncle buck

...has resigned

Chip

Bout time too.

Chip

Shark

I wish that w*nker Blair would to [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

David

drumsterphil

iTrader: (1)

As I've just heard on tv, her resignation won't be front page news now.......pretty good time to minimise media coverage (cynical hat on).

Sheepsplitter

Lying bitch should have been sacked weeks ago.
Why does Tony Blair pick so many gits to be in his cabinet?

Chip

No, the spinners would never do something like that. Would they?

Chip

zoog

We don't need no education...

uncle buck

Well, I think she has shown remarkable integrety to sack herself in the wake of dicks like Mandelson and Byers. People seem to agree that she was safe for the time being, but she wasn't satisfied with her own performance and fired herself. That's good.

Can you imagine any Tory scum doing the same? [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

pslewis

Uncle Buck - the Tory scum would have wanted a FAT payoff first, maybe a large envelope stuffed with tenners??

makes me laugh these people who cannot/refuse to remember the scum that WAS the tory party!!

Long live Tony and New Labour - here to stay, the Tories havent got the ***** to play anymore!!

Pete

uncle buck

Pete, You're soooo right. No body seems to remember anymore just how cr@p the other lot were

Tony B will *always* be a better bet than Thatcher/Major (Hauge and... that other bloke.. duncan? ian? ... whatever...

pslewis

Uncle Buck - the good thing about all these clowns are that they will NEVER enter power as long as more than 50% of the voters remember what a bunch of corrupt clowns the Tories were - I cannot see where they are going to find a leader that could measure up to Tony Blair - there are those who would slag him off, but without the ***** to even be able to do a tenth of his workload - what a bunch of to55ers? right?

Long Live New Labour!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pete

uncle buck

It's a bit like that ad:

"So minister, what have you got to say for yourself?"

"err... I'm incompetent, completely useless"

How refreshing .... how Heineken

ChrisB

You up for another winter of discontent then Pete?

Mind, being 96 (IIRC), you probably remember the last five

skipjack

here's a little reminder about how corrupt this government is:

- bernie's £1m donation to new labour to effect a successful policy change over tobacco sponsorship.

- the fixing of the union ballot to prevent socialist ken livingstone getting the offical party nomination for mayor of london.

- the fixing of the ballot to ensure tony's man alun michael, not socialist rhodri morgan, got the official labour nomination for first minister of wales.

- the mittal steel scandal where a non-UK business buys prime ministerial endorsement for a deal prejudicial to UK steel jobs by making a substantials contribution to party funds.

- installation of greg dyke and gavyn davies, both significant contributors and sympathisers to new labour, at the top posts in the BBC.

- the hinduja brothers and the £1m millennium dome contribution that got them instant passports.

- then you have geoffrey robinson (accepted £200K when working for robert maxwell & failed to declare it then denied it ever happened)

- then you have peter mandelson (fraudulent mortgage application with cash from, yes, geoffrey robinson plus the hinduja brothers)

- then you have keith vaz, henry mcleish and stephen byers.

all this off the top of my head in just five years of government.

now if you think that a handful of corrupt individuals in the tory party accepting cash for questions, getting caught perjuring themselves or numerous others having extra-maritals compares to election-rigging, the political manipulation of the BBC and cash-for-favours financial impropriety on a massive, seven figure scale, then you have an odd sense of perspective.

i'm no tory apologist but i like to deal in fact. tory corruption was largely individual - the evidence shows it. new labour corruption is largely institutional and it reaches all the way up to the top of government - the evidence shows it.

so i ask the question: which do you think is more corrosive, and to my mind, worrying?

MarkO

They're both as bad as each other. My vote's with the Monster Raving Loony party.

skipjack

markO

that's a cop-out: how can endemic institutional election-rigging and a £1m bribe be as bad as an individual MP taking a £20K bung from mohammed al-fayed, being a hypocrite or getting his secretary pregnant?

NotoriousREV

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, so the Tory party isn't corrupt, thats funny, it really is.

Here's a hint: they're all as bad as each other, some just don't get caught

The economy is doing very nicely considering the current global slump, we're enjoying extremly low interest rates, reasonable inflation and a healthy housing boom (which will one day slow, but will not collapse, IMHO)

This gives us time to focus on the not so pleasant aspects of the Labour government.

Thatcher decimated this country's industry, brought about the current crisis in public services due to years of underfunding and privatisation.

Be thankful you don't live in Iraq, at least you get to choose your corrupt leader.

MarkO

Skipjack, are you trying to tell me the Tories only had a few minor misdeameanors which were nothing to worry about?!?!?

Okay, your starter for ten: which party did I replace in the following excerpt - Tory, or Labour?

the Pergau dam scandal. The XXXXX administration, being determined to secure contracts for both its arms manufacturers and the construction company Balfour Beatty, misdirected some £200m to finance a white elephant dam in Malaysia, through an obscure funding mechanism called the Aid and Trade Provision.

Fact is, the Tories were just as big a bunch of lying, cheating, thieving scum as Labour are. Let's not forget that the Millenium Dome was the Tories idea. [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

zoog

Thatcher didn't decimate industry - a combination of bloody minded union militancy and archaic working practices with competion from the developing world did it.

We went through a painful transition to a post -industrial service economy, it was inevitable. UK labour costs dictated that we couldn't make stuff as cheaply as Korea/China/you name it. So we moved on to new services that they can't do yet. It is cyclical.

Blair has charisma I grant you, but I could never ever vote labour. I feel unrepresented politically by any party. I think millions of others feel the same hence the apathy the public shows to politics currently.

skipjack

no markO i'm not saying that at all. i guess i can add to your comment about the pergau dam the vote gerrymandering scandal in westminster by lady porter. in fact, why not go the whole hog and add in matrix-churchill and the iraqi supergun?

i'm saying that this government has displayed more corrupt anti-democratic tendencies in a shorter time and that they will brazenly undermine and erode democratic process to achieve their idealogical ends. plus they're willing to accept simply huge cash-for-policy bribes from business. i'm saying that i believe this to be a far more pernicious and dangerous form of corruption.

MarkO

Arms-to-Iraq was going to be my next point.

I think we've illustrated my point though, which is that they are both deeply corrupt and unpleasant organisations. Perhaps Guy Fawkes wasn't so daft after all?

[Edited by MarkO - 10/24/2002 11:40:34 AM]

skipjack

markO - the millennium dome per se has nothing to do with this debate (but yes, it was a tory idea - michael heseltine - but it was new labour that built it and mismanaged it). just the fact that the hinduja brothers made a significant contribution to it and new labour and in return received fast-tracked british passports.

NotoriousREV

The surest way to corrupt a young person is to teach them to esteem more highly those who think alike than those who think differently. -- Nietzsche

MarkO

Erm, yes, it does. The initial phases of the dome project were handled by the Tories, who handed it over to Labour after construction had actually started.

The decision-making process of what should or shouldn't be in the dome was riddled with backhanders and other such corrupt naughtiness. The fact that the dome cost the taxpayer almost a £billion cannot be solely blamed on Labour....

dsmith

Thast the beauty of politics - the ability for selective memory.

If its good it entirely our doing (e.g. general state of economy)
If its bad - well they started it ! (e.g. Dome )

Deano

[Edited by dsmith - 10/24/2002 11:58:45 AM]

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Good God, I'm agreeing with Skipjack!!
You forgot the recent lot who gave a large donation to Labour, then "suddenly" got the contract for the Measles(?) jabs.
And Blunkett saying he'd resign if they didn't reach the targets they set for 11 year olds. They didn't, and neither did he!
But then, I hated the Tories too.....do you think I have an authority problem? Or maybe I need to stop looking too closely at what politicians do.
Alcazar

skipjack

i don't think the dome has much to do with an argument about relative corruption but you're right, the tories do have to carry some responsibility as they conceived the project. however, responsibility for the delivery of it, its content, the management of it and the disposal of it lies incontrovertibly with this government. they spent the money on an act of political vanity when it could actually have been something quite special.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Good Grief!! I'm agreeing with him again
Off to get some paracetamol.
Alcazar