All those that saw the program by Jon Snow on Syria will realise that
the politicians know as little as the rest of us peasants as to why
there is fighting there, and why interference by the West in any form
whatsoever will only exasperate the problem. Oh well, what's new?
I watched that program on Syria, and I agree with what you say.
The actions of the west in both Afghanistan and Iraq have not changed a
lot of what happens in those countries, and it never will.
You have only to look at Northern Ireland as an example.
Yes, he and Brown switched houses. But there is supposed to be
a connecting door inside the building, so he could still emerge from
No. 10 for the photoshoots. It all probably helped Brown's belief that
he was destined for the PM job, only to be proved disastrously wrong
when he got it. The only thing I thank Blair for is that he kept Brown
out of that post for as long as he did.
The only thing I thank Blair for is that he kept Brown
Blair kept Brown out until he could clearly see that we were ruined
totally, at which point he handed the whole disaster to Brown and let
him carry the can.
Brown then handed it to the Tories..you wanna know WHY the limp dims
were rejected when they looked at at a labour coalition>? No way did
Labour want to be where the coalition is now. Only Cameron was stupid
enough to want to be in power cleaning up after the biggest mess a
Labour government had ever made.
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
On 14/03/2013 10:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
He's stupid, mad, or dedicated. Or perhaps all.
Either he didn't see the mess coming.
Or he saw it coming, and thought he'd be able to fix it.
Or he saw it coming, and thought the best thing for the country would be
to take the **** rather than have more of the previous government.
Personally I'd go for mad. Specifically megalomania - which is common to
all politicians, as every single one of them has a delusional belief in
their own omnipotence. Add a touch of dedicated too.
On Thursday 14 March 2013 11:35 Andy Champ wrote in uk.d-i-y:
I proposed an new (well, maybe not) idea over supper the other day...
A "randomocracy". Bit like Jury service. Pull a few hundred people for 4
years and give them a ministerial job or assistant to minister job.
Including the PM.
Totally impractical I know (Jury service buggers up work, how would this
work?) but could it be better - or less worse?
No career politicians.
No buggering about voting.
Lobbying would be dealt a huge blow.
Would rely on the civil service to provide the technical analysis of each
realm of issue and advice on the expected impact of any given solution - but
that's their job, and I don't think they are bad at it...
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/
http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage
I don't think politicians are in the least stupid. If you doubt that,
check up, as far as that is possible for ordinary people, on the
difference between their income and net worth *before* entering
Parliament and the same figures afterwards.
Not at all impressed by He Who Shouts, though.
Windmill, snipped-for-privacy@Nonetel.com Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.