Contributor Leaderboard

Ryker Jaxon Miles, 7lbs 15 oz, 21 1/2"" long. born April 22/2110 @ 10:43am

A little girl asked her father, 'do all fairy tales begin with "Once upon a time"? The father replied, 'No, some begin with - If I am elected.' It's tough being a politician. Half your reputation is ruined by lies the other half is ruined by the truth! 'Poli' in Latin meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking creatures'. Political cunning should never be mistaken for intelligence. During Britain's "brain drain," not a single politician left the country. Crime is merely politics without the excuses. Activity is the politician's substitute for achievement. Why is it that political leaders don't seem to have all the answers until they write their memoirs? The trouble with political jokes is they get elected. The government claims it's following the will of the people. I didn't even know we'd died! Make your M.P. work - don't re-elect him. If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. A politician is a man who stands for what he thinks the voters will fall for. A politician has to be able to see both sides of an issue, so he can get around it.

Just to lighten the mood... a joke in today's paper:- What do you get if you cross a politician with an owl? Someone that fiddles their expenses and doesn't give a hoot!!

I'd like to have a chat with you sometime when you have the time, as i am one of the parents of the so called scumbags and i will not have my children either involved in this type of behaviour or will i have them misrepresented on a public website. In all seriousness, id like to ensure that you never suffer again, that is if my children have in fact been the cause. I know meadowdale is full of kids and many of them go from group to group. However, i can only promise you that if my children have caused you any problems, that they personally apologies and will also ensure you get a full apology and the matter ended! However, I've heard a completely different story from the one you post above, would be good to help put this to a close for you and your family.

http://owen-edwards.fotopic.net/c1841134_1.html few photos of the steam engine passing

Sizsells, One of the prime responsibilities of any national government is the protection of its peoples and realms. How that is achieved, in a nuclear age, has historically been to say we have the means to obliterate you if you launch against us and so cancel the threat. That has served us well enough during the 'Cold War' period but the landscape has changed of late and we have to respond to current possible threats not historical ones. We also have to realise our country is now relegated to being just a bit part player in the global game. For these reasons I think we could save the cost of modernising our nuclear arsenal. It has probably more to do with where we sit when the UN Security Council meets, as we try to cling to past glories! GGG makes a historically reactive case and while that has probably been the correct course of action in the past I think we could possibly get the same level of 'insurance cover' through negotiated treaties these days. If we take the protection afforded by these weapons to counter the threat by another power with the same weapons then who are we talking about? USA, Russia, China and France. The countries developing this type of capability might be more worthy of consideration, India, Pakistan and North Korea, but we should let the big boys handle them. One box of frogs in the mix, Israel, but they have never admitted possessing these weapons. South Africa had them then dismantled them before signing the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

Here you are talking about £70 Billion per year? Whereas when the LDs talk about the Trident replacement cost they are talking about a figure that would be split over ten years. Seems to me that there's a lot of this bamboozle with figures going on. For the same reason we have an army, and a navy and an air force. For the same reason we fit locks on our doors knowing that they are really not a huge amount of use. For the same reason that we "throw away" money on insurance policies. For the same reason we have the Queen. Because they are a deterrent; because they've been proven to come in useful - often for the most unexpected reasons at the most unexpected times; because we'd be talking more risks than we need to take without them; because they contribute to the stability of ourselves, our Nation and our Planet; because we've always had them, and no one person or political party is wise enough to tell us exactly what we'd be letting ourselves in for without them. It's not that we can't find other things to do with the money, and it's not that we don't all wish they didn't exist or that all nations didn't say lets universally ban them - we'd be right at the front of the queue there! There's also a military case that says they allow us to have far less conventional forces than if we didn't have them! i.e. they are cost effective. AND because in the 1930's we made the same mistake of unilaterally running down our military by listening to the same sort of arguments. The bill for that "saving" is still visible in our public places. The Labour Party learned that lesson more thoroughly than most, because by and large it was their failed experiment (though it suited the general mood at the time)!

I think there is a choice coming through now but we really have to look close and make some pretty prophetic projections given that none of the main parties are willing to put their REAL manifestos out before us for consideration. It is no accident the economy is playing a large part in this election so I guess we should stick with that. Basically the country is bankrupt and we have been paying the mortgage with our credit card for some time. It is obvious that has to stop and what we are really talking about is the method of withdrawal and getting that repayment into proper terms. Labour's reticence to get to grips with this problem can be seen as a failure of government, because quite simply they are the government of the day. This is notwithstanding the fact that they are in the main responsible for the problem in the first place! The only possible way I can see their plan working, well the bits they have talked about anyway, is if we have rampant inflation. We are holding enough debt paper to choke a horse but inflation will erode its value over time. At first glance that might seem a pretty painless way of tackling the debt problem we have but it also makes the rest of our monies worthless and we will end up paying a tenner for a loaf of bread. This inflation route is the only way I can see why Darling Brown are so smug and complacent when talking about the economy. Looking closer to home Northumberland has 48% of jobs in the public sector, now that might be payback for the solid Labour vote election after election, but is doesn't bode well for any cutback in that sector. Even Brown saying he will move jobs out of London and relocate them up here probably won't replace what is about to be lost. The Conservatives want to look tough and realise there is a massive hole to fill but as GGG says publishing the necessary cuts will be electoral suicide. (If only one party does it!) They are talking about the need for cutbacks but won't say exactly what that really means. In fact their 20%/80% strategy will see 80% of any money needed to rebalance our budget coming from public sector cuts and given the previous statement about our local labour market make up that should be worrying for us. I think this above all else will probably keep Labour seats safe in this neck of the woods. The Lib Dems,,,,, well Stephen might be better placed to say what their take is on future changes needed to our economy because as soon as I get a handle on what they come out with they then almost rescind it. They could be the biggest 'cutters' of all and there is an analogy if we look at the way the Lib Dems have ran NCC since taking control. Their dynamic duo of Clegg/Cable looks the least compatible offering for governance given that they don't seem to understand what each is saying at times. Some of their economic strategies are into the realms of fantasy but then long shots can often do that and get away with it. We also have to consider the other smaller parties as I think there is still huge public underlying resentment at sitting MPs and the way their expenses scandal unfolded. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw some big names loose their seats and this time there isn't a nice job at Hong Kong waiting! Of course this is a look at the national stage, what we will do is elect one very, very, very small part of that, even if by some coincidence the MP we elect is in the ruling administration the odds are he won't be playing any major role in government.

If the Liberals get in Merlin there will not be any imrigants, Nike say's he'll make tham all legal citizens. Get your swimming trunks on as mainland UK will sink within six months of him getting power.

Or am I about to be hit over the head with a frozen husky?