BS: Rory Bremner

Subject: RE: BS: Rory Bremner
From: GUEST,tory hater
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 10:57 PM

i thought we were all being sarcastic..???

Subject: RE: BS: Rory Bremner
From: GUEST,Tory Boy
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 07:09 AM

Why does Margaret Thatcher get such a bad press?
She changed this country for the better.
Unions no longer hold the country to ransom.
People are beginning to stand on their own two feet and not ask governments to do everything for them.
Millions have health insurance; four cars per family; council housing rapidly disappearing as people buy them.
Public spending made way for individual spending, made possible by income tax cuts, cuts, cuts.
Maggie made all of this happen.
She had the guts to say there's no such thing as society, only individual men and women.
She was also a supreme war leader.
Now Michael Howard - and the Aussies - have got us back on track, just stand back in amazement as the new Conservative government carries Maggie's torch forward. Illegals and boguses watch out - we'll be on your case.
Thank you all my Saddam-loving friends. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha .

Subject: RE: BS: Rory Bremner
From: Piers
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 03:24 AM

Straight from the profit-takers mouth:

Labour and Tories same - Branson

There would be little difference for businesses between a Labour and Tory government, says Richard Branson.

Asked which party would be better for business, the Virgin tycoon said: "Arguably, it doesn't matter."

He told the BBC Gordon Brown had been a brilliant chancellor, but said Labour had continued Tory policies.

"The difference between having a Labour government for business to having a Tory government has been fairly negligible," he told Newsnight.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4450641.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Rory Bremner
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 07:26 AM

That stuff Branson said, quoted by Piers above, cuts to the chase. It makes a mockery of the government-funded advertising campaign someone mentioned, in which every issue of society, right down to pub closing times, can be apparently be resolved to our individual satisfaction if we will only turn out and vote on May 5.

The one thing new Labour has done that was truly exceptional was to start a war not in self-defence or retaliation, but as a pre-emptive strike against an enemy weakened over several preceding years by sanctions and air strikes. It was the first time that so-called civilised democracies have gone to war on the strength of intelligence alone. It is now clear beyond the slightest shadow of doubt (and if it wasn't, the Butler report makes it so) that in using the intelligence for his own (ie Bush's) agenda, Blair not only "sexed up" the dossier but lied through his teeth to parliament.

One result is colossal destabilisation in the gulf region, with the volatile nations of Turkey, Syria and Iran, not to mention the vested interests of the Kurds, Shias and Sunnis, all desperate to fill the vacuum. Meanwhile US military strategists now start to talk in desperatiion about getting out, even though the insurgents are still able to mount 50-60 significant incidents a day, exactly as they have been doing since Saddam was toppled.

Is there any reason why Iraq should NOT be top of the agenda when people consider how and whether to vote on May 5? It is the one issue on which our views might actually cut some ice.