Conservatives move closer still to Labour

brodski said:
In the past Ministers have gone on the record that both PFI projects (such as the hospitals AndyAndy mentions) and social housing stock transfers from LA control to Registered Social Landlords ("Housing Associations") are primarily motivated by PSBR rules, as City Academies have the same PSBR advantages, as well as many of the same cost, oversight and organisational disadvantages, it's not that much of a stretch to believe that the primary motivation behind them (apart from them being a Blair pet project) is this PSBR advantage.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The only possible reason that the gov. perists with PFI (which is now widely discredited - see just about any issue of private eye) is that it means that one-eyed porridge-wog can hide untold £billions of debt off the balance sheet, thus maintaining the illusion that he is some kind of economic genius and not a complete doofuss who sold the family silver and still left us with so much debt its going to take generations to pay off.

/rant.
 
Jon_in_london said:
one-eyed porridge-wog
Click to expand...


Reported.

And it may be helpful if I explain to our North American readers why:

"Wog" is a pejorative UK racist term originating in the colonial period, when it was used as a label for the coloured population of places such as India and Africa. In modern British parlance it has become less prevalent and has been applied to any type of coloured or black person.

Or to put it another way, in British terms our broad-minded little friend from London has just deployed the "N" word. So he's managed to racially insult both Scottish people and coloured people at the same time.

http://www.billcasselman.com/wording_room/wog_one.htm

Tell me, Jon, does such blatantly racist vocabularly make you feel big? Or are you now going to try and laugh it off as misplaced humour?
 

Attachments

  • woglowres.jpg
    woglowres.jpg
    10.4 KB · Views: 5
Last edited:
Jon_in_london said:
Indeed. The only possible reason that the gov. perists with PFI (which is now widely discredited - see just about any issue of private eye) is that it means that one-eyed porridge-wog can hide untold £billions of debt off the balance sheet, thus maintaining the illusion that he is some kind of economic genius and not a complete doofuss who sold the family silver and still left us with so much debt its going to take generations to pay off.

/rant.
Click to expand...

Have you considered the possibility that your racism may be clouding your judgement?
 
Last edited:
Architect said:
Incidentally, has Gordon Brown really only got one eye?
Click to expand...

Think he still has both but has no sight in his left eye. Detached retina possibly caused by a rugby injury. Had a similar problem with his right eye but the surgery on that was carried out using techinques/instruments not available when he had the operations on his left eye. Had that not been successful maybe Jon would have labelled him a blind porridge-wog?
 
Yes- all Scottish "people" are actually cyclopses, they use cunning make-up to disguise this from us, they also have cloven hoofs - which if you think about it explains why you never see Gordon Brown without shoes.

Seriously - I've heard he has one glass eye but I don't know if that is correct or not.
 
Darat said:
Yes- all Scottish "people" are actually cyclopses, they use cunning make-up to disguise this from us, they also have cloven hoofs - which if you think about it explains why you never see Gordon Brown without shoes.

Seriously - I've heard he has one glass eye but I don't know if that is correct or not.
Click to expand...

You do know that the whole cyclops thing is just a cover story to convince people that David Icke was wrong when he talked about shape shifting lizards don't you?
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Think he still has both but has no sight in his left eye. Detached retina possibly caused by a rugby injury. Had a similar problem with his right eye but the surgery on that was carried out using techinques/instruments not available when he had the operations on his left eye. Had that not been successful maybe Jon would have labelled him a blind porridge-wog?
Click to expand...

Wikipedia supports this:

...As a student, he suffered a detached retina, possibly in an accident playing rugby. He was left blind in his left eye, despite treatment including several operations and lying in a darkened room for weeks at a time. A later operation for a detached retina in his right eye saved him from total blindness. ...
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Think he still has both but has no sight in his left eye. Detached retina possibly caused by a rugby injury. Had a similar problem with his right eye but the surgery on that was carried out using techinques/instruments not available when he had the operations on his left eye. Had that not been successful maybe Jon would have labelled him a blind porridge-wog?
Click to expand...

Well he'd never have made a cabinet minister under Nu Labour if he was blin...David Blunkett
 
Is this stuff even relevant? I thought Brown would be taking over after Blair. Isn't the next election far in the future?
 
DanishDynamite said:
Is this stuff even relevant? I thought Brown would be taking over after Blair. Isn't the next election far in the future?
Click to expand...

The next election is likely to be in 2009, however this is interesting as it is probably the start of the Tory’s actually having some policies, and making a creditable bid for election, they have spent the last ten years tearing themselves apart, and then using most of their time mending internal fences and making sure that they don't say anything which offends anyone.
 
brodski said:
The next election is likely to be in 2009, however this is interesting as it is probably the start of the Tory’s actually having some policies, and making a creditable bid for election, they have spent the last ten years tearing themselves apart, and then using most of their time mending internal fences and making sure that they don't say anything which offends anyone.
Click to expand...
Yes, I can see how it might be of interest historically as a point of change within the Tories, I just don't see the relevance to coming elections. An election 2 years in the future means that any little statements made at this point are irrelevant to said election. 2 years is almost infinitely long in election terms.
 
DanishDynamite said:
Yes, I can see how it might be of interest historically as a point of change within the Tories, I just don't see the relevance to coming elections. An election 2 years in the future means that any little statements made at this point are irrelevant to said election. 2 years is almost infinitely long in election terms.
Click to expand...

yes, but that fact that they have started to make these statements is relevant, especially given the timing. The Tories are beginning to position themselves for 2009.
The perpetration for mobilisation for the election campaign against brown has begun, and its very interesting to note which direction they are going in, they are not appealing to their base (indeed there was a bloody big row about this statement within the Tory party).
 
brodski said:
yes, but that fact that they have started to make these statements is relevant, especially given the timing. The Tories are beginning to position themselves for 2009.
The perpetration for mobilisation for the election campaign against brown has begun, and its very interesting to note which direction they are going in, they are not appealing to their base (indeed there was a bloody big row about this statement within the Tory party).
Click to expand...
Look, the election is 2 years way. There will be all sorts of manuevers and various outrages at this or that scandal between then and now. Trust me, this tiny manuever is just that.
 
DanishDynamite said:
Look, the election is 2 years way. There will be all sorts of manuevers and various outrages at this or that scandal between then and now. Trust me, this tiny manuever is just that.
Click to expand...

I know it is a tiny manoeuvre but it is the start of the sort of movement that we haven’t seen from the Tory party in ten years.
Party politics is about to get interesting again…
 
brodski said:
I know it is a tiny manoeuvre but it is the start of the sort of movement that we haven’t seen from the Tory party in ten years.
Party politics is about to get interesting again…
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that a nationalist government taking power in Scotland wasn't interesting?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom