 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-5-2010 13:19, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>> BTW did we already congratulate you on your new government?
>> And on the speed they formed one. Here it often takes months to form a
>> government.
>
> Wait, this thread was about the British elections?-o
>
> ;)
>
Did you have a new one too?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/05/2010 12:06 PM, andrel wrote:
>> But the world will stop turning if we don’t have a government, so the
>> politicians say. :-P
>>
> Our government fell feb 20th, having a partial government without full
> power since then. Elections will be june 9th. I am not expecting a new
> government before October. As long as you (or germany) provide a
> government, you will turn the earth for us, I guess.
It is our press that does it. They have a 10th Dan in creating Media
Panic. ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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).
So if you're not a fan of the Tories, this is a really good thing.
>> 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. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> But the world will stop turning if we don’t have a government,
so the
> politicians say. :-P
As opposed to California, where we have lots and lots of government, and
they still manage to deadlock each other so much that the governator wind
s
up giving out IOUs instead of paychecks to the employees.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> 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.
>>> 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.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/05/2010 5:31 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> But the world will stop turning if we don’t have a government, so the
>> politicians say. :-P
>
> As opposed to California, where we have lots and lots of government, and
> they still manage to deadlock each other so much that the governator
> winds up giving out IOUs instead of paychecks to the employees.
>
Wasn’t California in danger of becoming bankrupt recently?
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Wasn’t California in danger of becoming bankrupt recently?
Everyone is already bankrupt. That's the nature of government and debt-ba
sed
money.
The danger (and what came to pass) is that they got *so* bankrupt they
couldn't meet their obligations even *with* the ability to print money
and/or take it from someone else by force. But it's kind of complicated
because the feds take huge amounts of money, then give it back in differe
nt
allocations to the states, so the state being bankrupt was at least as mu
ch
the fault of the federal government as anyone here. The thieves were
stealing from each other too hard.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/05/2010 6:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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).
>
I looked it up. :-)
> So there is a silver lining.:-)
>
Maybe, We had 18 years of Tories then 13 years of Tories (New Labour)
and the Lib Dems turn out to be Tories now :-(
>>> >> So if you're not a fan of the Tories, this is a really good thing.
>>> >>
I'm not a happy bunny ATM
>>> >>
>> > 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).
True.
>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.
Yeah politicians, not a principle between them.
>
> 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).
>
Tartan Tories!
OK that is what they were 40 years ago but it still riles them. :-D
>>>>> >>>> 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.
>
Oh! Yes :-D
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/05/2010 6:20 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Wasn’t California in danger of becoming bankrupt recently?
>
> Everyone is already bankrupt. That's the nature of government and
> debt-based money.
>
> The danger (and what came to pass) is that they got *so* bankrupt they
> couldn't meet their obligations even *with* the ability to print money
> and/or take it from someone else by force. But it's kind of complicated
> because the feds take huge amounts of money, then give it back in
> different allocations to the states, so the state being bankrupt was at
> least as much the fault of the federal government as anyone here. The
> thieves were stealing from each other too hard.
>
Thanks, I think that I'll go back down the bunker now. :-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
