Jacqui Smith?

shuze

prowla wrote: »

And anyway, today's big story is a new stealth tax on booze.

..which isn't going to happen.

shuze

Horace wrote: »

You really didnt expect anything to happen did you? The labour government make the rules and she just abides by them:mad: .

Amazing, anyone would think they'd been elected or something.

A._Badger

shuze wrote: »

Amazing, anyone would think they'd been elected or something.

Yes, with a paltry 36 per cent of the electorate voting for them - the lowest percentage ever for a victorious party and a large number of those from the Labour fiefdom of Scotland.

Still, looking on the bright side, the likes of Smith, Vaz, Hain and the rest of the greasy crooks won't be getting in next time.

Not that the other two parties are much better, in my estimation but Smith et al are indefensible.

shuze

A._Badger wrote: »

Yes, with a paltry 36 per cent of the electorate voting for them - the lowest percentage ever for a victorious party and a large number of those from the Labour fiefdom of Scotland.

Still, looking on the bright side, the likes of Smith, Vaz, Hain and the rest of the greasy crooks won't be getting in next time.

Not that the other two parties are much better, in my estimation but Smith et al are indefensible.

So, trivia question for you: which party was last elected with a majority of the electorate?

Answer: er.....

"Fiefdom of Scotland" - last time I checked, Scotland was part of the UK. Is England a "Conservative fiefdom" then? What makes it a "fiefdom" anyway?

shuze

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm usually extremely cynical. But unfortunateley, yes, I did expect some investigation into this. It is appauling nothing has happened and shes getting away with it.

The taxman wouldn't let it slip for any of us lot.

Spose it's a bit like that Lord the other day, cleared of dangerous driving after crashing and just having used his mobile. If I recall correctly, he was drunk too? Or Brunstorms daughter getting away with doing over 100mph on the M4, while people like myself are fully charged for doing 83mph on it.

GD - I share much of the sentiment, but I think we should be careful over the facts of the "Lord" with the phone incident. As I understand it, the court was satisfied that there was no connection between his illegal use of the phone and the subsequent accident. I also understand that it was the victim who had been drinking.

PasturesNew

I think she's a cheeky rule-bending mare.

It's obvious that if you have a partner/husband you're actively living with + kids, all in a house ... and you go off to another town during the week to work ... that your main home is back where your family is!

Many many many people work away in the week and don't get ANY expenses to help pay for their 2nd home, they have to suck it up out of their post-tax earnings.

Cheeky, cheeky mare.

Martinslovechild

Just thought I'd cheer you all up with a nice picture of Hazel Blears



:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

shuze

Martinslovechild wrote: »

Just thought I'd cheer you all up with a nice picture of Hazel Blears



:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Oh Christ no!

...and I've just quoted it, so it's here twice...

She is smart though isn't she (dressed I mean)

A._Badger

shuze wrote: »

So, trivia question for you: which party was last elected with a majority of the electorate?

Answer: er.....

"Fiefdom of Scotland" - last time I checked, Scotland was part of the UK. Is England a "Conservative fiefdom" then? What makes it a "fiefdom" anyway?

Can we assume you know the difference between a majority of the electorate and the lowest percentage ever recorded by a victorious party?

If not, debate is pretty pointless.

As for Scotland - do we really need to revisit the West Lothian question?

You were trying to suggest that Labour had a mandate and that was good enough. I am simply demonstrating that, as mandates go, it was a poor one.

Meanwhile, back on topic, no mandate excuses the behaviour of Smith and the rest of her corrupt colleagues.

shuze

A._Badger wrote: »

Can we assume you know the difference between a majority of the electorate and the lowest percentage ever recorded by a victorious party?

If not, debate is pretty pointless.

As for Scotland - do we really need to revisit the West Lothian question?

You were trying to suggest that Labour had a mandate and that was good enough. I am simply demonstrating that, as mandates go, it was a poor one.

Meanwhile, back on topic, no mandate excuses the behaviour of Smith and the rest of her corrupt colleagues.

Re: on-topic: you raised it.

I gather from your first sentence that you haven't found an example of a government being elected by a majority of the electorate?

Which particular form of PR are you proposing?

The "West Lothian question" - I'd be fascinated to hear you spin that into Scotland being a fiefdom.