On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:56:06 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 13/05/2010 5:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:33:53 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/05/2010 10:08 AM, andrel wrote:
>>>> BTW did we already congratulate you on your new government?
>>>
>>> Thanks but I don’t know if congratulations are in order. ;-)
>>
>> Well, think of it this way - with Cameron as PM, he's got to make
>> several unpopular decisions, and according to at least one pundit (I
>> forget who), those decisions could well exclude that party from being
>> in power for more than 5 years. (The article my wife read suggested
>> that the winner wouldn't be in power for a generation after they got
>> done).
>>
>>
> I think that that was Mervyn King the Governor of the Bank of England.
> And your wife is correct about being out of power for a generation.

Could be, that sounds familiar (I'd ask her, but she's off at a class at 
the moment).

So there is a silver lining. :-)

>> So if you're not a fan of the Tories, this is a really good thing.
>>
>>
> The 1st Duke of Wellington and the 2nd Earl Grey will be turning in
> their graves at the thought of the Whigs and Tories in coalition.

Well, yeah - I found *that* to be quite surprising, the Lib Dems and 
Labor are a much more natural pairing (though that didn't make for a 
majority either).  I think the Lib Dems have played this quite well, 20 
cabinet seats and a fair amount of deniability for policies the Tories 
put in place.

But I know that many in Scotland are apoplectic over the coalition.  That 
can only help the SNP, right?  (I don't know enough about the SNP to know 
if that's a good thing or not, but it *sounds* like it is).

>>>> And on the speed they formed one. Here it often takes months to form
>>>> a government.
>>>
>>> But the world will stop turning if we don’t have a government, so the
>>> politicians say. :-P
>>
>> Certainly their world will stop turning. ;-)
>>
>>
> Especially if no one noticed.

LOL, too true.

Jim

Post a reply to this message