Blog powered by Typepad

« "Try and look on the bright side of life, de-da, de-da, de-da-de-da-de-da! | Main | "It is not poetry but prose run mad" (*) »

Wednesday, 04 October 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

So David, I'd be very interested to hear your views on who is the better heir to Thatcher; Cameron or Blair?

Both equally as bad - and who's being provocative now?

Take a hundred lines: "I must not poke David Duff with a sharp stick or he will come over to my friend's site and make a nuisance of himself - again!"

Sorry David!

I couldn't resist the temptation! Glad you saw the smile on my face when I asked the question.


I notice Cameron has slipped into that Blair style halting delivery. I'm frightend.

Dinna' fret yoursel', lassie, just hide 'ur wallet in the oat bin 'til the revenue men go by!

Oh it's not the money as such. I'm just worried he'll go further and get the Blair style big, mad, staring eye. Then start another war.

Politics 101: It's always the money, stupid!

Sorry, not being rude, but it is almost the first, last and only consideration when contemplating a government - how much will the bastards cost me?

War as we know it today is hardly likely to affect you so there's no point in getting *too* upset about it. But some scrofulous pol dipping his fat fingers into my back pocket - now that is something I take personally! You will gather from this that it yet another version of Duff's Law which roughly paraphrased goes as follows: don't spend too much time worrying about what you think is best for other people because, frankly, they know best for themselves, so keep it simple and just decide what is best for *you* because that is usually much simpler to work out - although I'm often amazed at how wrong people can get it!

So on that basis, how much 'fat fingers' is going to nick off you each month whilst offering you a welter of spurious promisary notes which would have him in front of the magistrates under the Sale of Goods Act if he wasn't the prime minister, is something that is easy to work out.

Of course, I realise that you still have vestiges of altruistic socialism clinging to you but when the NHS fails to look after you, when the police force ignores your cries for help because they're too busy clamping your car, when the schools send your children home even dumber than when they went and when, in three score years and five you reach eagerly for your old-age pension and they tell you to piss off, you'll at least have the faint satisfaction of not being surprised because you'll remember that that nice old David Duff told you so!

Bloody hell Duff,
It was a throwaway remark. Surely wars cost us money and the lives of our military. Can you just allow me a wee sneer at the loony criteria by which our government sends the army out? Go on? Iran is just about nuclear, Iraq has a few guns and pea-shooter. I know let's disarm Iraq. I'm not military expert but I see a flaw in that plan.

As for public money, I am astonished at the way it is wasted in the voluntary sector, where I now work. Not that the charities waste the money of their own volition but most of them need to employ an extra member of staff to keep the paperwork that's required to employ the other member of staff they do need.

Trouble is I was always horrified by the waste and inefficiency of the private sector when I worked there, so I remain unconvinced by them as well.

The state is crap, the private sector is crap. More than one person in the same room is a recipe for disaster, half the time. I think I shall try and become more like my late mother in law and take no notice of the whole shambles.

'Atta girl!

Sorry, occasionally even a mild-mannered chap like me feels the need to hawk up and clear some of the accumulated bile. It was just unfortunate that you happened to be standing in the way! Usually I try to be a little more considered.

364 Economists, old boy: the plonkers couldn't even organise one for each day of the year.

I'm confused. I seem to remember criticism on this blog about someone who has a normal job and does charity work as well by someone here who is actually financially rewarded for working for a charity.
Seems a bit odd to me.

Sorry, 'Anon', you've lost me - perhaps you could be a little more specific.

The comments to this entry are closed.