Gordon Brown - Head of the IMF???

chucky

lemonjelly wrote: »

This thread has descended a bit into a Tories are great/no they're not/Brown was an eedjit/no he wasn't debate.

However, Cameron is not looking the master of all he commands. He has attempted to fill the lords with his buddies (more lords, more quickly than any other PM - I wonder how much time he spent thinking about that, & how many of them are tory donors etc - more jobs for the boys, like georgie boy as chuky said earlier...)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13137835

The EU wants a raise of 4.9%
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13141644

Oh, & the valued NHS which Cameron vowed to protect has waiting lists at a 3 year high.

Yeah, way to sort the country out...

you're crossing the line now lemonbelly!!!

if you criticise anything tory you'll be labelled a die hard labour card carrying supporter...

ninky_2

lemonjelly wrote: »

You're as two faced as [STRIKE]janus[/STRIKE] nick clegg.

corrected that for you.

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

Actually, what concerns me is that Cameron hasn't thought about this very much.

Why not? He certainly should've done. & I don't think it makes him look good coming out saying he hasn't bothered giving it much time.

This is a massive role. Having UK involvement would be a massive bboost to the country. However at the same time, if it is as key role as Cameron goes on to imply (after saying he hasn't thought much about it) then perhaps he blooming well should think about it. & stop coming out with stupid quips.

& spartacus, you accuse me of derailing a thread after 6 pages of that happening? Man up will ya. You've said very little on this thread relating to the OP & then have the nerve to point that rubbish at me, but not commenting on the previous 5-6 pages.

You're as two faced as janus.

Maybe he just meant he had not give it much thought, EG Gordon Brown getting the job as he believes it is unlikely to happen?
The comment is clearly a dig to derail Gordons bid. But lets face it if you inherited the current deficit and you believed the out going person was partly to blame would you want him as a head of a financial institution you are a member of.
You can't knock the guy for having a personal opinion on a question asked to him?
It is like the Ex financial director getting sacked for nearly bringing down the company and you find out he want a job at a company you invest in. If you think he is no good regardless of nationality he should be able to give an opinion.

It's nothing to get stressed about ( I thanked sparticus's post because it has all got side tracked by politics), but I can't really see that a UK head would make much difference to the direction or sway of the IMF. It still has a board of governors made up from member country's so any decisions have to get through them, I can't see it adding extra sway in our favor personally.

lynzpower

Really2 wrote: »

Sorry I am losing your point here we have a massive amount of government debt.
So are you ignoring that and just going to raise revenue by other means?

You cant argue selling unused assets when in a time with massive amounts of debt and a sluggish economy is the same as selling all our gold reserves when we were not running a budget deficit?

Not at all. Im sorry i wasnt clear.

What I am doing is lamenting the fact that selling at the bottom of the market is not "a good thing". It might be a neccesary ( or even unneccesary evil) But doesnt it make you feel ever so :wall: that governments did not think to sell off derelict swimming pools or flats at the top of the market? Or even try to get more for them now instead of sending straight to auction.

There would be less deficit around if we had sold these assets at the right time to get peak money. Id have thought voters of all persuasions would agree with that.

lemonjelly

chucky wrote: »

you're crossing the line now lemonbelly!!!

if you criticise anything tory you'll be labelled a die hard labour card carrying supporter...

Bit wierd isn't it chuckster. We all have to have an agenda apparently...

ILW

lemonjelly wrote: »

Bit wierd isn't it chuckster. We all have to have an agenda apparently...

I once has a Chrysler Agenda, rubbish car.

System

You get hopelessly under qualified time-wasters applying for every position. It's the Job Centre's fault.
It's certainly nothing for the PM to waste his time over.




Throw out 50% of all job applications unread - you don't want to employ unlucky people.

bendix

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

You get hopelessly under qualified time-wasters applying for every position. It's the Job Centre's fault.
It's certainly nothing for the PM to waste his time over.




Throw out 50% of all job applications unread - you don't want to employ unlucky people.

Ive done that regularly. Never seems to affect the quality of the people I hire.

Of course, I have a policy only of hiring goodlooking people. My office is a fattie free zone.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

Ive done that regularly. Never seems to affect the quality of the people I hire.

Of course, I have a policy only of hiring goodlooking people. My office is a fattie free zone.

i can see you failed to read 'ninky's guide to management: bullsh1t and delegation' rule 3......

always hire a couple of chubby fuglies whose self esteem is so low it will actually be boosted by the praise, thanks and attention they can garner from volunteering to stay late to complete a mundane task no one in their right mind would want to take on.