Sunday, April 10, 2011

The Rt Hon Alan B'Stard on AV



Alan B'Stard was a Conservative who was lured by the promises of Tony Blair and defected to New Labour. He was rewarded highly with ministerial office and appointment to the Privy Council. This video is set in the not-too-distant future when 'rainbow' coalitions are the norm and politicians say anything to get elected only to renege on those promises in order to form a government.

This 'buck passing' was the theme of His Grace's post yeaterday. The multi-coloured political banner under which Mr B’Stard is standing reflects the current situation. While hung parliaments seem to occur about every 30-40 years as a result of First-Past-The-Post, a switch to the Alternative Vote is highly likely to result in perpetual coalition government, leaving Nick Clegg (and his successors) as perpetual king-makers.

No2AV Campaign Director, Matthew Elliott observes:
“This kind of shoddy behaviour is exactly the kind of thing we might see under AV. We would have politicians doing backroom deals and not delivering on their promises just so they could cling to power. This is why we should protect our democracy and keep One Person, One Vote.”
So, it wouldn't matter if Mr B'Stard promised the electorate leprechauns, fairies at the bottom of the garden, or a referendum on the EU, he could (and would) blame his coalition partners for the inability to fulfil his manifesto pledge to implement his policies, and is thereby absolved of blame.

Surveys (and declining turnouts) consistently indicate that people are already cynical about our politics and hold politicians in contempt. Far from engaging the electorate further, AV will exacerbate the divide between the ruler and the ruled. It is, as Nick Clegg once believed, 'a miserable little compromise'. For the likes of Mr B'Stard, it is electoral manna.

45 Comments:

Anonymous Zach Johnstone said...

It's encouraging to see that the 'No' camp has made so much ground in the last few weeks, though the spectre of AV looms large.

Were AV to be brought in to being, can Your Grace see a future Conservative government legislating to reinstitute FPTP? After all, it seems quite politically viable to hold a counter referendum in, say, 2016 (following a pledge in the 2015 manifesto).

If Parliament cannot bind its successors, and the EU has demonstrated the electorate's propensity for changing its mind, perhaps FPTP can make a prompt return to the political scene?

10 April 2011 at 11:49  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

No doubt we would get more Crusades for Rothschilds Fairy Land also because thats what the B'Stards do best.

10 April 2011 at 11:50  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

I'm thinking that the Yes camp will end up winning this. I got my electoral booklet thingy through and AV all looks so spangly and rational if one just goes by the description of the mechanism.

10 April 2011 at 11:57  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Zach Johnstone,

The short answer is, in theory, yes. But the more interesting point is that even if AV passes on 5 May, the 2015 general election can only be held in accordance with AV provisions if all boundary reviews are completed in time. Since we are in the process of decimasting (literally) the number of MPs, with all the fraught negotiations, appeals and counter-appeals which each boundary revision may elicit, it is by no means certain that the process will be completed in time for the next general election. Ergo, 2015 could still be hald under FPTP. Should the Conservatives win that election outright, it is (just) conceivable that AV may be reversed, especially if the turnout is low and the margin of victory small. It is, however, politically highly unlikely.

10 April 2011 at 11:58  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Let's be honest, the level of political intelligence in the UK leaves a lot to be desired. We average a 60% turnout and the 'man in the street' or the 'white van man' really isn't too bothered so long as he has bread on his table today.

The corruption of our political leaders, from Westminster to Brussels, reflects this disinterest and the level of cynicism is, I think, more a symptom of this.

Poor education, a gutter press that over simplyfies issues and a mass media seemingly hell-bent on undermining the social fabric of the country.

Good Lord! I'm sounding like a National Socialist!

Are people really that bothered? Have they ever been unless motivated by some 'great cause' or sense of grievance?

10 April 2011 at 12:05  
Anonymous Zach Johnstone said...

Your Grace,

How interesting; I did not consider that the implications of protracted boundary reviews could (potentially) be so hazardous for AV in the long term.

As Your Grace points out, it does seem politically unlikely.

However we can at least live in hope, I suppose...

10 April 2011 at 12:19  
Anonymous Andrew E said...

You're not going far enough. Clearly coalitions are bad. But FPTP produces coalitions too. So we should just ditch FPTP and have a dictatorship.

OK, maybe that's going too far. So let's keep FPTP, but only have two parties, full stop. That way we'll never have a coalition.

OK, that might effectively come down to asking "which of these two dictators do you want?", but that's still better than letting people have a free choice of who to vote for like they'd have under AV. You know they'd get it wrong and give us perpetual coalitions.

10 April 2011 at 13:05  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

@Andrew e
The schort answer is that we already HAVE a dictatorship.

It's called the eu, of course, and it doesn;t believe in holding elections very much, except when it doesn;t matter. If an election is held which does matter, and the result doesn;t go the way it wants, then it's held again, until the "right" result is obtained. The eu alterntive, also popular, is to simply ignore the result.

Either way around, AV makes no real difference to anything any longer because of the 80% of legislation appearing out of thin air from the eu commission.

Remember that the politicians are allowed to play in the eu, but have no real power. No manifestos are published because the parliament can;t introduce legislation. Nor can it throw it out.

If all this doesn;t amount to a dictatorhsip I don't know what does.

10 April 2011 at 13:13  
Anonymous richard said...

Old Grumpy, I agree. Of course if you are right then anyone who goes through the charade of voting in our current regime is a fool.

10 April 2011 at 13:30  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

As usual I agree wholeheartedly with Your Grace.

AV can only make a bad situation even worse, if indeed that were possible.

As I said in a previous thread.

The given solution is always one which results in more of what caused the problem in the first place, not less of it.

An important part of the solution would be for the masses to become fully aware of who and what secretly rules upon their lives and nations.

Which job seems to have fallen solely upon people such as myself.

An impossible job if ever there was one.

However, Atlas has broad shoulders, as he has much practice at holding up this God forsaken lump of spinning rock.

10 April 2011 at 13:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"... a switch to the Alternative Vote is highly likely to result in perpetual coalition government, leaving Nick Clegg (and his successors) as perpetual king-makers."

Where is the evidence to support that assertion?

It is because last year, some months after we had elected a hung Parliament under FPTP, NO2AV noticed that the Australians had just elected a hung federal Parliament under AV?

In fact since 1919 when the Australians moved to AV for their federal elections, they've had FEWER hung federal Parliaments than there have been hung UK Parliaments.

And in New South Wales, which holds its state elections using the same variant of AV we would have, what they call "optional preferential voting", there was a single party Labor government for 16 years until two weeks ago when those scoundrels were comprehensively booted out of office - another antipodean event, but one which apparently went unnoticed in the "no" camp.

Or is it based on the information provided by opinion polls in this country, such as the YouGov poll reported last week by Channel 4 which led to the following predicted results if we were to have a general election in the near future:

http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/alternative-vote-alternative-outcome/15032

Under FPTP:

Labour 355 MPs
Tories 255 MPs
LibDems 16 MPs

Under AV:

Labour 342 MPs
Tories 255 MPs
LibDems 29 MPs

So which of those general election outcomes would necessitate the formation of a coalition government, just another dreary ineffectual deceitful coalition government in a perpetual series of dreary ineffectual coalition governments?

Would it be the one where Labour got an overall majority of 60, or the one where Labour only got an overall majority of 34?

The reality is that nobody knows how often AV would lead to hung Parliaments, compared to FPTP - not even the omniscient Matthew Elliott, who even though he's normally the Chief Executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance apparently doesn't know that the costs of the referendum will be borne out of national taxation and not local taxation.

But we do know that under AV the predominant role in deciding whether or not any single party should be trusted to govern alone would be taken by the electorate, just as it was in May 2010 under FPTP.

10 April 2011 at 14:46  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Matthew Elliott says politicians would do deals ‘just so they could cling to power’ but clinging to office would be nearer the mark. With the transfer of power to Brussels, modern politics really has become show business for ugly people.

10 April 2011 at 14:52  
Anonymous Oswin said...

I'd vote for the Rt.Hon. Alan B'Stad, regardless of the voting system. Caricatures of lying, self-serving and incompetent politicians are positively benign in comparison to post-sitcom reality.

DanJo, yes the ''electoral booklet thingy'' does give an air of rationality to A.V (one of the most lucid government publications I have ever encountered!) but, I remain unconvinced.

To me, and regardless of any other potential problems, it sounds a bit like an old fashioned 'Roulette' scheme; but one that is devoid of any necessity to produce a real winner.

I wonder at the mathematics of the single 'X' AV vote, versus multiple, descending AV choices?

AV may be simple (?) but it is counter-intuitive, and that worries me... I am reminded of the old Army adage of 'KISS' : Keep it Simple, Stupid!

Those considering AV should, in like Army fashion, consider: 'Prior preparation prevents piss-poor performance from prevailing'... is there a mathematician in the house?

10 April 2011 at 15:36  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld Ambassador to Vedics and other medical professions + Tiddles said...

..and His Grace skips nimbly down the wicket and launches the ball straight over mid off for a massive six.

What a batsman!


Old Ernsty knows the problem is NOT the voting system but THE PARTIES.

Perpetual coalition, could anything be more horrific?

Ernst

10 April 2011 at 16:32  
Anonymous non mouse said...

We are British, and we inherently respect The Law. The enemy exploits this propensity, knowing that we have done so even when, as one Dickens character recognised, "The Law is an ass."

The present situation is untenable because the Law is AntiChrist's Ass. So we must rescue it from the burden it bears - and, preferably, find a way to guide its burden to destruction.

euLaw is itself illegal and imposes itself against our better interests. We should, therefore, find ways of refusing to cooperate. Refusing to vote could contribute to that cause.

We need a campaign though - and it would have to show clearly that we refuse not out of ignorance or apathy, but because the whole thing is a vote-fiddling sham. Our object is to demonstrate to the eu and its puppets: WE WILL NO LONGER PARTICIPATE IN OUR OWN DESTRUCTION.

It could be difficult to convince enough people to work with us the first time; however, such a campaign could attract attention simply because it is revolutionary to reject what seems to be democracy. Our aim is to reveal that it's nothing of the sort.

In addition, if we contributed towards one of the euSSR's 'unacceptable' results ... then we would have prepared fertile ground for refusing to cooperate with them on the second round.

Eventually, we would hold our own elections, thank you; and we would elect our own candidates on our own terms. Thereafter we could resume control of our own laws. Which we would continue to respect.

10 April 2011 at 16:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My offering seems to have gone astray the first time, so repeated.

"... a switch to the Alternative Vote is highly likely to result in perpetual coalition government, leaving Nick Clegg (and his successors) as perpetual king-makers."

Where is the evidence to support that assertion?

It is because last year, some months after we had elected a hung Parliament under FPTP, NO2AV noticed that the Australians had just elected a hung federal Parliament under AV?

In fact since 1919 when the Australians moved to AV for their federal elections, they've had FEWER hung federal Parliaments than there have been hung UK Parliaments.

And in New South Wales, which holds its state elections using the same variant of AV we would have, what they call "optional preferential voting", there was a single party Labor government for 16 years until two weeks ago when those scoundrels were comprehensively booted out of office - another antipodean event, but one which apparently went unnoticed in the "no" camp.

Or is it based on the information provided by opinion polls in this country, such as the YouGov poll reported last week by Channel 4 which led to the following predicted results if we were to have a general election in the near future:

http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/alternative-vote-alternative-outcome/15032

Under FPTP:
Labour 355 MPs
Tories 255 MPs
LibDems 16 MPs

Under AV:

Labour 342 MPs
Tories 255 MPs
LibDems 29 MPs

So which of those general election outcomes would necessitate the formation of a coalition government, just another dreary ineffectual deceitful coalition government in a perpetual series of dreary ineffectual coalition governments?

Would it be the one where Labour got an overall majority of 60, or the one where Labour only got an overall majority of 34?

The reality is that nobody knows how often AV would lead to hung Parliaments, compared to FPTP - not even the omniscient Matthew Elliott, who even though he's normally the Chief Executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance apparently doesn't know that the costs of the referendum will be borne out of national taxation and not local taxation.

But we do know that under AV the predominant role in deciding whether or not any single party should be trusted to govern alone would be taken by the electorate, just as it was in May 2010 under FPTP.

10 April 2011 at 16:52  
Anonymous Gordo said...

Tory, Labour, Liberal all offer much the same policies, the differences are marginal and cosmetic. They are already in a coalition with eachother, have been so in fact for many years.

10 April 2011 at 17:38  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

The real problem with a single issue referendum is that people will actually get what the majority vote for.

10 April 2011 at 17:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know what - how about another referendum...

Wot about a Vote of No Confidence in Dopey Dave?




wv: patogaro

10 April 2011 at 17:58  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Anonymous: Is there a less ''dopey'' alternative?

10 April 2011 at 18:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Verrrry gd. question Oswin! Even if it were fptp...
So maybe that yes/no to Europe is the only way :)

10 April 2011 at 18:58  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Anonymous: we concur!

10 April 2011 at 19:01  
Anonymous richard said...

non mouse, there IS a remedy, and possibly a nascent campaign. It's called lawful rebellion, our right under Law (the Magna Carta!) to refuse to co-operate with a tyrannical State. Captain ranty's blog has plenty of information.

10 April 2011 at 19:05  
Anonymous MrJ said...

...."the whole thing is a vote-fiddling sham" (non mouse 16:43) is well said but an understatement.

The clip ends with B'stard entering a room with CABINET OFFICE and "Stitch-up meeting in progress" on the door which is banged shut behind him.

A reminder that NOONE concerned with AV Etc and the present and future of government and the constitutuion of this country should fail to take note of "The GOD Squad's Whitehall Coup" by Michael Pinto-Duschinsky at http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/3805/full

10 April 2011 at 19:45  
Anonymous non mouse said...

An outstanding article, MrJ. Thank you.

And yes, we must stand and point!

10 April 2011 at 20:27  
Anonymous not a machine said...

mmmm interesting tactic being used on one news papers blogg "say yes to AV to vote all the corrupt politicians out" .Quite a neat little trick , I mean as though AV will not just enable more democratic corruption.

I am perhaps with ernst , it is not the system but the parties , they claim voter apathy will be cured by this system , yet no one is making the case that people may wish for the accountability of FPTP.

I dont know if it the right word , but AV could be a sort of grooming , and use the old trick of keeping certain arguments out of campaigns eg lets say a waste dump was being proposed , which one group was going to rubber stamp (pre done on the QT deal), said waste dump sponsor then funds second candidate in with chance , to not mention it and instead give candidate who opposes it dam good dressing down (main candidate does not do this to look nice) .
You perhaps can see how even in this simple form , one candidate can ensure the optimal vote for another , and the issue of the publics concern not even getting any daylight.

I hope the public suss this professionals design of what the left are worried about , it is voter apathy , it is to ensure that left spindrugs can pressure opinions that are anti left .

FPTP ensured that public concerns were listend to , the sound arguments and record were made in public view before any ballot made . Who can honestly say that under AV two or more parties would decide what to spin the public with a better arithmetical success by pulling wool over enough of the electorate to achieve the required result .

Yes to AV will give political rigour and enquiry a bad name , money will no longer just fund the winning candidate , but the others who run there campaigns that ensures the public select there person . debate will die as will opposition in the public interest.

It is coralling of the voter , not an alternative vote, you only get the real chance of an alternative , when you can enquire on the corruptions , when your candidate can speak some truth ,AV will not allow you to sniff the rot out .

10 April 2011 at 23:02  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld Ambassador to Vedics and other medical professions + Tiddles said...

Non Mouse wisely said as ever 10 April 2011 20:27

"An outstanding article, MrJ. Thank you. And yes, we must stand and point!" Seconded.

Sorry to disappoint all those who hope for AV to push their candidates such as UKIP or BNP for seats in HOC but Ernsty will not give up FPTP in the vain hope this might change the current Lab/Libdem/Con stranglehood.

1. Who can see what mishaps could occur in the meantime to both parties. Events, dear boy, EVENTS?? a wise Super Mac once rightly said.

2 Once AV is implimented there will be NO going back...much too dangerous folks.

Stand firm and give no ground in this sham or worse will follow.

If you believe this has all happened by chance, then you have not been paying attention to what has been taking place under our nose for nearly 3 decades.
Its called salami slicing, piece by piece, until nothing is left in your hand except the skin with a bit of string attached.!!


Win the battle first, to win the war.

Old Ernsty

ps

Not a Machine..excellent and Ernst humbly recommends your comments.

11 April 2011 at 09:14  
Blogger Katabasis said...

That has to be the most collossal own goal I think I've ever seen.

Nice one No2AV - you've completely lost me now.

11 April 2011 at 10:14  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld Ambassador to Vedics and other medical professions + Tiddles said...

Katabasis..may as well be anonymous 11 April 2011 10:14

"Nice one No2AV - you've completely lost me now."

Should we even be bothered, young man, if you are so easily confused and cannot give a reason?

E S Blofeld

11 April 2011 at 11:03  
Blogger Katabasis said...

Blofeld

- I haven't liked either campaign so far, and was particularly disappointed to see both campaigns descend very quickly into a tribal left/right conflict.

- The video above highlights the nature of the political class in general. #1 rule is expediency, "political science" be damned. The video shows precisely what happened under FPTP after a hung parliament resulting in a coalition and claims this is what might happen under AV resulting in a coalition.

Also - being incredibly patronising hardly furthers your cause either.

11 April 2011 at 11:39  
Anonymous BnS aka MrJ said...

Well, Blofeld let us all be warned. Remember Jung's Article on Picasso (1932): "... The descent into ancient times has been associated ever since Homer's day with the Nekyia..... The Nekyia is no aimless and purely destructive fall into the abyss, but a meaningful katabasis eis antron, a descent into the cave of initiation and secret knowledge."

Which of these would you answer to... (Search Results) patronising_1. Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority. 2. Frequent (a store, theater, restaurant, or other establishment) as a customer.

Not so bad as "odious" for BNP?

11 April 2011 at 12:08  
Blogger Katabasis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 April 2011 at 12:28  
Blogger Katabasis said...

Additionally, this kind of conflict of interest:

http://order-order.com/2011/04/11/mps-report-yes-campaign-to-kelly/

puts me off voting in the referendum entirely.

11 April 2011 at 12:29  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

What an utterly crap video.

So currently we have a system where our MP's act honourably, stick to their manifesto's, don't make promises they can't keep and don't do shady de3als behind closed doors. But if we change our electoral system to one that is tried & tested in lots of countries then all these things will start to occur? Unbelievably trite & patronising.

11 April 2011 at 12:57  
Anonymous non mouse said...

These 'other countries' have proved that their system worked better than ours? So that's why they needed to make us 'fly an ordinary pitch'!

Rebel Saint - They are not and were not better. We were better than we have become - but who would turn to us now it's all corrupted? We can't even respect ourselves any more - as you yourself demonstrate.

It didn't used to be like that. I used to come back to this country every day, and thank God it was still ours, and still wonderful (compared to the others). Not any more.

11 April 2011 at 15:21  
Anonymous berserker-nkl said...

As a No voter, I received my leaflet for the 'yes' campaign. Not the 'no' yet, though. It all looks reasonable then you pay a bit more attention:... a Yes vote in the Fairer Votes Referendum next May will change that (the cosy system that protects jobs for life) But calling it a Fairer Votes R presupposes that the status quo or FPTPS is unfair and that is patently unfair.

Another quote: No more will elections be decided by a few people in marginal seats.

This is weird logic because they are only marginal because the majority of voters gave a more or less equal distribution of their votes. So the majority still decided! So the outcome is not decided by a few people in marginal seats.

11 April 2011 at 15:56  
Anonymous BnS aka MrJ said...

Rebel Saint and Katabasis_ Many disturbed by the info. about Baron Kinnock of Bedwellty at the link at 12:29 may be better advised not to abstain from the AV Etc referendum but to proceed to the voting booth Nekyia-wise and increase the number in the NO count.

11 April 2011 at 16:01  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 April 2011 at 10:46  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

I really am staggered by the amount of intelligent, erudite people who think that FPTP is in any way superior to anything (other than dictatorship). It really is quite breath taking. Have you never wondered why no new democracy ever chooses FPTP? Why one of the only countries that changed from AV to FPTP quickly changed back again? Why none of the political parties use FPTP in choosing their leaders? Why none of our devolved parliaments use it? As the NO campaigns video perfectly demonstrates ... FPTP is great for choosing candidates based on their physical speed or for a red/blue scenario. For everything else it fails.

I presume you've all seen this and this. Both rather compelling videos, which don't insult your intelligence like the NO campaigns.

12 April 2011 at 10:47  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Oops. The missing link is this.

12 April 2011 at 11:03  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Rebel Saint,

One can tell that the human body evolved because it works. Anything that didn't work was removed, and anything that did was kept. Had man been designed by man, then we would be full of errors and would never work.

Never trust it when something complex and undefinable is designed to 'perfection'. Marxism led only to communism and fascism led to nazism, franco and mussolini. The Weimar government's PR was adopted by a new democracy. It's coalition inspired weakness allowed the rise of a man that Godwin knows about quite well.

Taken from Wikipedia

In his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, historian William Shirer described the Weimar Constitution as "on paper, the most liberal and democratic document of its kind the twentieth century had ever seen ... full of ingenious and admirable devices which seemed to guarantee the working of an almost flawless democracy." Yet, the Weimar Constitution had fundamental flaws.
Proportional representation was one such flaw. It meant that the number of votes gained was directly proportional to the number of seats gained by a party. This system, intended to avoid the wasting of votes, caused the rise of a multitude of splinter parties, most of which represented the extreme ends of the political spectrum. This in turn made it difficult for any party to establish and maintain a workable parliamentary majority. This factionalism was one contributing factor in the frequent changes in government. Shirer cites the presence of some 28 political parties in the 1930 national elections; Otto Friedrich cites 40 different groups in the Reichstag in 1933. Proportional Representation allowed no safeguards against a quick rise of an extremist party as only a tiny minority of the votes could get Deputies into the Reichstag as shown in the 1924 elections where the Bavarian Peasants' League got just 0.7% of the vote resulting in 3 Deputies in the Reichstag.


No one actually wants AV and the only major first world country to use it is Australia, the other two countries being fiji and papua new guinea. In contrast "Plurality (fptp) voting is used for local and/or national elections in 43 of the 191 countries of the United Nations"

I'll stick to a system that doesn't give undue power to the third party thanks. It will just lead to more tactical voting. Who will Labour supporters put as their second vote I wonder? BNP? UKIP? Oh no wait...

The best system to use is probably benign autocracy. Perhaps it's a little too risky, but stuff gets done, and there aren't any wasteful popularist policies such as equality laws.

12 April 2011 at 13:14  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@lakester91 ... What a crock of complete & utter shite. And no wonder when you start off with the false premise of your 1st sentence.

AV is not perfect, but it is an improvement on FPTP.

If FPTP is the ultimate evolution of democracy ... why does non new democracy ever choose it? Why do our own political parties not use it? Why do our devolved assemblies not use it? Why do so few organisations choose it? Why did the one example of a country changing from AV to FPTP change back again?

The NO2AV arguments are so weak as to be laughable.

12 April 2011 at 14:05  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Rebel Saint : on those rare occasions when I feel as assured as you appear above, an accompanying unease emerges ...

12 April 2011 at 16:08  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld Ambassador to Vedics and other medical professions + Tiddles said...

Ktabasis said 11 April 2011 11:39

"Also - being incredibly patronising hardly furthers your cause either."

Dear communicant, if Ernst was being patronising, you would be aware of it!

"Should we even be bothered, young man, if you are so easily confused and cannot give a reason?"

RE: If you cannot even give simple reasons rather than a tossaway comment, why should it concern the No to AV adherents..Simples! *squeak*

Ernst

12 April 2011 at 19:00  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld Ambassador to Vedics and other medical professions + Tiddles said...

BnS Aka MrJ said 11 April 2011 12:08

"Well, Blofeld let us all be warned." Lol.

"Which of these would you answer to... (Search Results) patronising_1. Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority. 2. Frequent (a store, theater, restaurant, or other establishment) as a customer.

Not so bad as "odious" for BNP?"

Old Ernsty has been called worse by that scallywag DanJo.

Ernst prefers condescended (the nice way of saying 'coming down to their level as they cannot come up to where Ernst is reasoning from').

;-p

Ernsty, my boy.

12 April 2011 at 19:20  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older