Tuesday, April 06, 2010

General Election 2010 – a moral choice

He has ducked and dived and dithered and doubted for years.

But today Gordon Brown – our unelected Prime Minister – named the day and prepares to face the electorate. He is asking for his first mandate, which he hopes will be an historic fourth term for Labour, notwithstanding the deepest recession for 60 years and a potentially mutinous public sector.

And he does so at a time when the polls are all over the place. An ICM survey for The Guardian indicates the Conservative lead has dropped to just four points, with the Conservatives on 37%, Labour on 33% and the Lib Dems on 21%. That is certain hung parliament territory. However a YouGov poll in The Sun and another by Opinium for The Daily Express suggest the Conservatives have opened up an impressive 10% lead - the margin David Cameron is likely to need in order to win an outright majority on 6th May. The Sun has the Conservatives on 41%, Labour on 31% and the Lib Dems on 18%. The Express says the split is 39%-29%-17%.

This is a two-horse race: there are only two candidates for the top job; two options to choose from. For the sake of country, community, family and personal sanity, there can be only one outcome to this General Election: the Conservative Party must win it and David Cameron must become Prime Minister to end 13 years of Labour rule.

It has been a traumatic time – the third-longest ‘wilderness’ period in the party’s history. Not quite as fraught as the Corn Laws schism, but every bit as demoralising and depressing. As the Queen is asked to dissolve Parliament, even she might dare to hope that we are now in the final weeks of New Labour, and that ‘renewal’ and ‘recovery’ might come from a Conservative government which promises to be the most transformational in a generation.

It is, of course, by no means certain. There is every possibility that the nation might awake on 7th May to face five more years of Gordon Brown. But, for the first time since 1997, the country is having an election in which the outcome is not pre-ordained: it is politically exhilarating because it is the most fiercely contested election campaign for a generation and the result is genuinely uncertain. It is the most eagerly awaited political showdown (bar Boris defeating Ken Livingstone) since Tony Blair swept away John Major and 18 years of Conservative rule, and without question the most closely-fought election since John Major defied the polls and defeated Neil Kinnock in 1992.

And with three 90-minute ‘presidential’ television debates to get through, anything could happen.

Bar Nick Clegg becoming prime minister.

The battle lines:

Gordon Brown’s election pitch is about ‘the road to recovery’, and a Tory government will put us well and truly ‘back to the road to recession’. We face ‘three big challenges’ – ‘securing the recovery, protecting front-line services whilst halving the deficit, and renewing politics’.

Recovery? Renewing politics?

He must think we have the brains of an amoeba.

David Cameron election pitch is concerned with ‘the Great Ignored’. He explains: "We're fighting this election for the Great Ignored - young, old, rich, poor, black, white, gay, straight. They start businesses, operate factories, teach our children, clean the streets, grow our food and keep us healthy - keep us safe. They work hard, pay their taxes, obey the law."

Pity he didn’t think to include the believer / non-believer dichotomy.

They also start businesses, operate factories, teach our children, clean the streets, grow our food, keep us healthy, keep us safe, work hard, pay their taxes and obey the law.

They also form ‘the moral conscience of the nation’.

And there are one or two more believers than there are gays.

And they too have a vote.

Nick Clegg’s election pitch is –

O, who cares?

David Cameron says the ‘Great Ignored’ are ‘good, decent people – they're the people of Britain and they just want a reason to believe that anything is still possible in our country. This election is about giving them that reason, giving them that hope’.

And that hope is Mr Cameron’s moral imperative, for he promises to govern righteously – or at least more righteously – and to administer justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. And the genealogy which shaped the British understanding of these concepts is undeniably Christian and particularly Protestant. Indeed, such terms are inexplicable and incomprehensible without reference to the religious traditions that fashioned them.

The Conservative Party’s focus on the ‘broken society’ is reminiscent of that pursued by the party under some of its previous leaders – in particular Benjamin Disraeli, Stanley Baldwin, Harold Macmillan and Margaret Thatcher. And it may be observed that the impetus for social reform has stemmed, at least in part, from the professed Christian faith of these leaders. With David Cameron producing a political manifesto designed to address the most pressing issues of the day, such as family breakdown, drug abuse, inner-city decay and the provision of health and education to the poorest (his ‘social justice’ agenda), it may be posited that we arrive at the practical outworking of theological wisdom. His challenge will be to articulate the traditional Tory benign paternalism for order, justice and peace in the modern era, while preserving the ‘rights’ and ‘liberties’ which have accrued since his party was last in power, in particular those which emanate from the continental religio-political traditions of the European Union. The task of preserving such liberty is, as Edmund Burke identified, ‘the peculiar duty and proper trust of a member of the House of Commons’.

And there is some ‘clear blue water’ between the parties, not least on Conservative plans to oppose greater EU integration; abolish inheritance tax for the poorest; recognise marriage in the tax system; reform education by offering taxpayer-funded independent schools; and give a free vote on such conscience issues as reducing the upper limit for abortion.

The Conservative Party need to gain 116 seats to win an overall majority, which is the biggest required swing since the war. If successful, he would be the youngest prime minister for two centuries and the 12th to serve under Queen Elizabeth II.

Unlike some meddling prelates, Cranmer would never presume to tell his readers and communicants how they should vote.

But if you are considering, however tentatively, giving your vote to Labour, the Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the Greens or the BNP, he beseeches you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.


Blogger Captain Ranty said...

I would imagine that Christ, and his bowels, would want people to live in a country that is more free.

Labour and the Conservatives have no desire to rip down the 4.2 million cameras, nor repeal 13 years of oppressive statutes.

Neither wish us to leave Europe immediately (which will solve more economic problems than we can imagine) and it will end the obligatory "One New Statute Per Day" that we have all grown accustomed to.

I will have to ignore Christ (and his bowels) and vote for a party that remembers to talk to its supporters, (and one that has issued a believable and sensible manifesto) and will deal with the monster head on.

It is UKIP for me.


6 April 2010 at 09:35  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

For Cranmer to associate morality with support for the Conservatives is contemptible. The underlying philosophies of socialism and conservatism both pursue the common good but by different means and of course both are flawed.

What really upsets those who post here is that the State has interfered with their personal freedoms or should I say the right to pursue their personal prejudice under the guise of conscience.

The trouble with conscience is that those who most espouse its importance are quite content that their own views, being “morally right”, need not be exposed to objective scrutiny. This is the path to tyranny not morality.

6 April 2010 at 09:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'And there is some ‘clear blue water’ between the parties, not least on Conservative plans to oppose greater EU integration'

A red herring - further integration will occur organically as part of the already ratified Lisbon Treaty that Cameron has refused to do anything about.

'abolish inheritance tax for the poorest'

There is no inheritance tax for the poorest, it's the middle-classes Cameron is trying to help out, and most specifically those in the south-east where the house-price boom has had a punitive effect on otherwise none-too-wealthy citizens.

'recognise marriage in the tax system'

after having twisted and distorted its meaning, extirpating of all coherence:

'reform education by offering taxpayer-funded independent schools'

that must teach state-dictated sexual-ethics, independent and religious or not

'and give a free vote on such conscience issues as reducing the upper limit for abortion.'

I'll give you that one.

Would have been nice for you to mention Cameron's oh-so-conservative approach to Catholic adoption agencies (also known as the 'abandon your Christian conscience or we'll outlaw you' approach)

I accept there are differences, by degree, to which both sides idolise their liberalism, but trying to manufacture an image of Cameron as a socio-cultural 'conservative' seems to me a Sisyphean task.

6 April 2010 at 09:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We're fighting this election for the Great Ignored - young, old, rich, poor, black, white, gay, straight."

You can tell Cameron's a marketer, can't you? But, as you say, he omits to mention faith communities.

By trying to be all things to all men (sorry, persons), he risks being nothing for the Lord. So painting him as a Messiah-like "administ[rator of] justice, liberty, equality and fraternity" seems a tad exaggerated, if not delusional.

Oh yes, and how about including 'England' in his list of the great Ignored: the word he dare not say, and the country for which he has no wish to be a prime minister, by his own admission?

6 April 2010 at 10:07  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

On some of the issues that really matter for the governance of the UK, the parties are about as 'identikit' as possible:
Here is a small pre-election question:

Which main political party can tick 'Yes' to the following policies?

1. Sanctions payment of approx. £50 million a day by the UK taxpayer to the European Union without a mandate.

2. Content to allow British business to be subject to punitive EU "directives" and other regulation at huge cost to their competitiveness.

3. Accepts the (now exploded) man-made global warming scam, and will implement very costly "green", and largely ineffective, policies involving massive expense to the British taxpayer.

4. Continues to deny a publicly made promise of a referendum pledge on the EU Lisbon Treaty/constitution.

5. Rules out any cost benefit analysis of our membership of the EU.

6. Opposes further integration into the EU whilst in Opposition, but supports it when in government.

7. Tolerates the destruction of basic democratic representation in a British Parliament, by substituting central control from the EU bureaucracy in Brussels - so disenfranchising the British electorate.

8. Ignores the existence of Britain's historic Constitution.

9. Endorses the cultural Marxist ideology of undermining the family unit via the homosexual agenda in education through indoctrination.

10. Pursues an unwinnable war in Afghanistan at great cost to the British taxpayer, and at an even greater cost to the lives of British soldiers and their families.

11. Has been deeply involved in stealing from 'hard working families' and taxpayer's via false expenses claims.

12. Is responsible for, or complicit in, massive immigration into the UK against the wishes of the electorate opposed to ‘multiculturalism’.

The Labour and Conservative Parties.

6 April 2010 at 10:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'He must think we have the brains of an amoeba.'

Problem is that it would seem at least 1 in 3 of the voting public have brains of exactly that size.

This election will depend upon about 250,000 floating voters in marginal seats. Just hope and pray they have two brain cells and not the the obligatory one.

6 April 2010 at 10:37  
Anonymous Trencherbone said...

Somewhere in these opinion polls are a substantial number of supporters of The Party Whose Name They Dare Not Speak. I wonder whether they are predominanly masquerading as Labour voters, or just picking an 'appropriate' answer at random?

6 April 2010 at 10:46  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

I refer to the great Gerald Warner, whose blog should be required reading for all who follow this one. Here's a relevant example:

'Christian B & B owners do not want acts they regard as profoundly sinful taking place inside their own homes, with themselves as unwilling facilitators. Formerly both their scruples of conscience and their rights as homeowners would have been respected, even championed, by the Conservative Party. Today, however, it is enslaved to the PC agenda and obsequious towards the tyranny of metrosexual opinion formers.

To continue to call this synthetic organism manufactured in a social engineering laboratory the “Conservative Party” would be an imposture. It is no longer the Conservative Party, it is a completely different entity: the Cameronian Party. Today any Christian who votes for the Cameronian Party is contributing to his own marginalisation. That is the other issue raised by the Grayling faux pas: the position and appropriate response of Christians.

Christians in this country today are hurt, concerned, bewildered by the increasing attacks on their faith – the repeated banning of the emblem of the cross is a totemic example. Yet, from force of habit, in a Pavlovian reflex, large numbers of them intend to go out on polling day and vote “Conservative” (or even Labour). They have not made the connection between their supine support of their persecutors and the escalating crusade against their religion.

The laws that increasingly oppress Christians in this country are made by 646 individuals in the House of Commons. There are millions of Christians in Britain. They have the power, if they choose to exercise it, to consign those 646 petty dictators to the dustbin of history. If Britain’s Christians acted in their own interests and abandoned the three mainstream, aggressively PC political parties, the tyranny that oppresses them would be swept away. Everybody else is organised in militant interest groups, but Christians do nothing to defend themselves. They could start by withdrawing all support from the Cameronian Party and its anti-Christian agenda.

That's more like it (apart from the cross-wearing nonsense).

6 April 2010 at 11:09  
Blogger English Viking said...

The choice is clear:

A great, big, steaming pile of poo - Labour.

A great, big, steaming pile of poo -Conservative.

6 April 2010 at 11:19  
Anonymous PJ said...

Find out how authoritarian your mp is http://rank.libdemvoice.org/

6 April 2010 at 12:48  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"What really upsets those who post here is that the State has interfered with their personal freedoms or should I say the right to pursue their personal prejudice under the guise of conscience."

No you shouldn't. That would demonstrate extraordinary superciliousness towards "those who post here" (which category does not include yourself, of course).

6 April 2010 at 13:02  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Brown has asked the Queen for a dissolution of Parliament.

I didn't think it could get any more dissolute.

6 April 2010 at 13:09  
Blogger Gnostic said...

A two horse race between crapulent incompetants who couldn't find their way out of a paper bag with the help of a SatNav is no race at all. We'll still be a vassal state to the EU. We'll still have the suicidal windmill energy/ feed in, no coal or nuclear greenie idiocy. Neither side have a clue about tackling the economy or immigration.

I'll vote for the people talking common sense. UKIP all the way for me.

6 April 2010 at 13:35  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

It’s what Messrs Cameron and Osborne say in private that worries me:

❛At a dinner with newspaper executives on the eve of his address, [David Cameron] took the comparison a step further. ‘I am the heir to Blair,’ he said. If his hosts were in any doubt about what they had heard, Mr Cameron repeated the mantra.
George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor and fellow member of the so-called Notting Hill set of young modernising Tories, was also at the dinner table. Mr Osborne, defending the heir to Blair boast, said: ‘We have nothing to be ashamed of in saying it.’❜—The Times

6 April 2010 at 13:48  
Anonymous Tony B said...

>For the sake of country, community, family and personal sanity, there can be only one outcome to this General Election

Interestingly, by all of those criteria, Labour were the only choice in 1997.

Have both sides really changed that much?

6 April 2010 at 14:30  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

YG, Whilst I have a great deal of respect for your views and your exceptional writings, I am afraid its UKIP for me, now that, thankfully, they have a candidate standing in my constituency. Captain Ranty went some of the way for explaining why.

I believe one should vote for the party that represents their views, not for the lesser evil.

6 April 2010 at 15:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I won't be choosing either thanks.

6 April 2010 at 15:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With the nimble intellectual acumen we are used to seeing in the British Isles it will not take much time to see the electorate mess this up once again. Your Grace may be assured that the country will vote on the last head line of the BBC et al and sink the country. The more intelligent members of society will vote with their feet, Australia or Canada on the results. Remember Mr. Willson and those results?

6 April 2010 at 16:04  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

It speaks well for your erudition, Cranny, to quote Oliver Cromwell's letter to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (1650), saying, 'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.'

It doesn't, however, speak so well for your insight into the mood and perception of your readers -- or, at least, those of us who have commented on your remarks.

Your beseeching has fallen not upon deaf ears, but on ears attuned to wider matters than tribal loyalties. Many of us have been saying to you for some time that the entity now calling itself the Conservative and Unionist Party has had its levers of control hijacked by power-seeking social democratic snake-oil salesmen.

I think many of your loyal readers may well be responding: 'We beseech you, think it possible you may be mistaken.'

Mr Graham Wood's admirable post gives you a dozen solid reasons to change your mind; or, a dozen challenges for your to answer.

6 April 2010 at 16:09  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Anabaptist,

If, as you aver, the once-great Conservative and Unionist Party has been 'hijacked by power-seeking social democratic snake-oil salesmen', then it behoves the genuine and authentic conservatives to take it back, not splinter off into ever-decreasing factions who have not a hope in hell of ever forming a government.

6 April 2010 at 16:24  
Anonymous Stop Common Purpose said...

With the general election campaign underway, here are some ideas for questions to ask candidates about Common Purpose.

6 April 2010 at 16:48  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Thank you for noticing my comments, Cranny.

Can anybody deny that the entity now calling itself the Conservative Party is indeed little more than a hollow shell of that once-great institution? Would you deny it?

Whilst it may be the case that probably the majority of party members are much more like Conservatives of old, it is also the case that they remain where they are -- supinely accepting the leadership's derision of them as Turnip Taleban, and such like, for little more than tribal reasons, and in an irrational hope that Mr Cameron will turn out to be different from the social democratic snake-oil salesman that makes him acceptable to the BBC and other MSM outlets.

Some of us think that tribalism is not enough.

Some of us think that the best way to restore genuine conservatism to our politics is to withhold our support from the frauds now in control of the Tory Party, in the hope that a fourth election defeat -- against the worst, least popular, tyrannical, incompetent shambles of a government in history -- will finally destroy their pretensions and leave the field clear for real conservatives to hold up the principles that can no longer find any democratic expression.

Why should anybody vote for a party whose leaders stamp in their faces, and which, in all significant matters is no different from the current government?

In fact, it is even worse, because at least Brown doesn't pretend to be anything other than Labour.

What hope is there for 'taking back' the Conservative Party, when anybody who shows any genuine sign of true conservatism is promptly deselected (Howard Flight) or sat on (Chris Grayling)?

The levers of power are truly in the grip of the Cameron tendency, for which the tribal loyalists voted in droves.

The only way I can see of 'taking back' the Conservative Party is to drive the present gang of fakes into the sea.

Any other ideas?

6 April 2010 at 16:54  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

Your Grace - I can only agree with your observations above. But look at it this way. All that DC needs to do is to say publicly that he'll commit himself (and no weaseling, like GB on our non-referendum, the lying b***tard) to taking us out of the eu, and....there's no reason for UKIP to exist, really. Lots of lovely votes for the Conservative party!

Except that he won't, so he doesn't get my vote, ever. The Tories are just as in favour of the eu as NuLab

6 April 2010 at 16:55  
Anonymous Tony B said...

That nurse has lost her appeal. Ha ha ha.

6 April 2010 at 17:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What more can one do, other than to "know thyself" give a little whistle, Jiminy Cricket (conscience) tell us we are a stupid stubborn ass, eyor eyor eyor to know better, because you spent so long on the swings and roundabouts, you believe another turn on the see-saw is the answer.

Well, well! honey is not for the asses mouth.

Forget the bowels of Christ, its the belly of the Whale we need, rid ourselves of the puppet and strings, get real.

Signed: Japhetha

6 April 2010 at 17:20  
Anonymous len said...

I think it is a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils.
'Protest votes'for Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the Greens or the BNP could unleash the nightmare prospect of G Brown being returned to no 10.

6 April 2010 at 17:28  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

@ Tony B 17.09

Well, thank you, of course, for your erudite and informative comments.

But perhaps now you'd care to say, a little more constructively, maybe, why it's so funny?

Is it the principle of Christians losing such cases, maybe....or perhaps you simply don't like the nurse's hairstyle?

And, anyway, that story is on another thread to this one.

I'm sure we all look forward to your further thoughts.....if you have any.

6 April 2010 at 17:52  
Anonymous Y Rhyfelwr Dewr said...

"the nation might awake on 7th May to face five more years of Gordon Brown."

God have mercy on us all.

6 April 2010 at 17:55  
Anonymous no nonny said...

And what steps are we taking to ensure that the ballot is secure?

Even though the euSSR pretends to tolerate a 'vote,' we have every precedent for supposing that, like some posters here, its representatives are strangers to conscience. They will tamper with the results.

Come to think of it - since the major candidates represent the euSSR and not the electorate....

6 April 2010 at 18:34  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

God only knows how Cameron isn't wondering where it all went wrong. We have a hopelessly and pathologically inept, anti-Christian, pro-EU Government; the most unpopular since Thatcher's Conservatives, and yet he isn't predicted to win by landslide. The Commons should be filled with Conservative MPs in one months time and yet we are to get, at best, a hung parliament? Has Cameron lost his mind? He is relying on an apolitical, unchangingly Conservative populous to vote his party in. For everyone else it's the Labservatives or Conbour. All he had to do was make himself different and it was in the bag; he would win based on the unpopularity of the previous lot.

The Conservatives of today are the Labour of 10 years ago. They may slow the tide of Liberalism, but they'll catch up soon enough. They are far too caught up in the transient vogue of what they think people want, rather than the unchangeable rock of what people need.

A strong, high quality manufacturing and heavy industry to bring wealth and pride to the nation .
The feeling of control over their lives so that they don't lash out mindlessly.
A strong sense of morality, so that they know their limits.
A strong sense of family, so that they have responsibility, a reason to work and someone to love and care for.
A strong sense of SHARED culture; people need to feel that they belong to a group larger than themselves. One cannot feel patriotism if one doesn't feel part of the nation. One cannot have civic pride if one doesn't feel part of the town/city. In our case it must be Christian.
A strong agriculture; the less we need to import the better, especially if there is ever another war. We must support the farming community, as they are a vital part of our society
A strong military; it is usually only the weakest of nations that takes an overzealous pride in its armed forces, but it must be a source of pride even for the strongest. As an island nation we need a strong Air Force and Navy to defend our borders. We must maintain our status as the most skilled and highly trained military in the world in order to have political clout, especially if we are to leave the EU without inviting a civil war.
A strong sense of history to take pride in and build relationships with our Commonwealth (another necessity if we are to cast off our European shackles).

There is more to add to the list I'm sure, but if any party ticks the above boxes, then I will gladly lend my support to them.

6 April 2010 at 19:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Great ignored are the English I will be voting for the
English Radical Alliance in Wavertree.


6 April 2010 at 19:18  
Blogger Dominic Mary said...

'For the sake of country, community, family and personal sanity, there can be only one outcome to this General Election'

Quite so, Your Grace : a hung parliament.

Although I know you would disagree, the benefit of that would be that legislation would only go through because it was needed, not because it was part of some party's policy of showing that it wasn't actually moribund.

In addition, it would mean that policies would have to have active public support; and when you think of the legislation of the last decade, you'll recognize just how much difference that would make !

6 April 2010 at 19:38  
Anonymous IanCad said...

Your Grace,
For any meaningful change to develop in the Conservative Party only a defeat will effect. I have to say, I wish for a Labour win.

6 April 2010 at 20:55  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Old Grumpy - I posted that for a number of reasons, not the least being that it's about all the subject deserves; but also because I knew it would get a rise out of someone. My further thoughts are duly posted on the other thread, which incidentally wasn't there when I posted the above comment - I was hoping for the honour of being first to bring the matter to His Grace's attention.

6 April 2010 at 21:19  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Tony B,

His Grace's post on the crucifix matter was published at 4.59pm.

Your contribution above was made at 17.09.

Unless it took you 10 minutes to type, the post preceded your contribution to this thread.

6 April 2010 at 21:25  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Your Grace, your post makes a number of false assumptions, perhaps based on a lack of awareness of how browsers work, and the fact that people need to take a leak now and then.

6 April 2010 at 21:27  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

@ Tony B 21.27

Get a rise out of someone? Silly me, and there I was, thinking that we were having an reasoned discussion of recent events.

Thanks for the clarification, of course. I will bear that in mind when reading your further posts.

6 April 2010 at 21:50  
Anonymous Tony B said...

A reasoned discussion? Here?? You are a card.

6 April 2010 at 21:53  
Anonymous len said...

Old Grumpy,
Anyone called Tony B.... should not be taken seriously.

6 April 2010 at 22:59  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

I think we made that mistake before len; just can't think when...

6 April 2010 at 23:03  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Lakesider @ 19:41
//A strong military; it is usually only the weakest of nations that takes an overzealous pride in its armed forces, but it must be a source of pride even for the strongest. As an island nation we need a strong Air Force and Navy to defend our borders. We must maintain our status as the most skilled and highly trained military in the world in order to have political clout, especially if we are to leave the EU without inviting a civil war.//

I agree with your post but sadly I don't think Britain is going down this route any longer. We will be latching on to Europe as we merge and share defence amongst other things. I think we will be cutting back on our army, navy and air-force as we become one with Europe, part of the master plan to homogenise and become one state.

Joining Europe for Britain is a bad idea and I can sense trouble as can most of the indigenous population here. The united Kingdom of Great Britain is splitting up and will be little bits of Europe in the not too distant future.

7 April 2010 at 01:44  
Anonymous Oswin said...

If my old Grandmama knew I was about to vote Ukip, she'd surely rotate in her grave!

Unfortunately, it is also true that if she knew what had become of her beloved 'Tory' party she would constitute a vortex that would consume the entire cemetery!

7 April 2010 at 03:17  
Anonymous Tony B said...

>Old Grumpy,
Anyone called Tony B.... should not be taken seriously.

As I said, reasoned debate? On here?? I suppose I'd be even less worth taking seriously if my initials were GB?

7 April 2010 at 07:45  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Marie 1797,
I'm rather worried about the provisions made in the Lisbon Treaty for greater military unity. If they get hold of an army then we are well and truly up some creek without any kind of propulsion.

It's sometimes difficult to tell where the funding for the world's second biggest funded military goes. I think that USA has shown us that throwing money at a military doesn't necessarily produce quality however.

7 April 2010 at 17:40  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older