Quite ironic really that the American military has helicopters called Apache and missiles named Tomahawks, both names taken from the people they slaughtered and then rounded up into reservations while they stole their land.
If a country tried that these days the International community would be installing no fly zones over North America to protect the Native American Indians who would probably be armed and held up as freedom fighters or rebels.
Or would they? In Kosovo, the KLA massacred whole villages of Serbs and when the Serbs fought back, they were the bad guys and the KLA the ones who NATO rushed to help. Look at Israel who murder and steal Palestinian land and when the Palestinians fight back, it is they who are the terrorists.
In Libya, those trying to overthrow the Government are the freedom fighters while in Northern Ireland the IRA attempting the same thing were terrorists.
It's confusing this freedom fighter/terrorist/rebel/insurgent thing.
Menachem Begin was the leader of the terror group the Irgun who bombed and massacred but picked up a Nobel Peace Prize while the CIA-funded, heroic, anti-Soviet fighters the mujhadeen led by Osama bin Laden becomes the world’s most wanted terrorist group. One time friends to the west Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi are now in the history books as murdering tyrants who had to be removed from power.
Nelson Mandela went from terrorist to international statesman while Fidel Castro has had countless attempts on his life by America after he overthrew the corrupt Batista Government. The Taliban are invited to the White House and described as 'the moral equivalents of America's founding fathers' and a few years later are being violently ousted by the same people who lauded them.
Who decides these things? The UN? The West? The Government being targeted?
Was Gandhi or the American colonies terrorists for wanting to overthrow British rule or the Bolsheviks for removing their king?
One can only conclude that the criteria for either being a freedom fighter or a terrorist is whether the person describing them likes them and it is the world powers that decide whether you are a fighting for your freedom against the Government or terrorising it.
Monday, 28 March 2011
Sunday, 27 March 2011
Tracing The Giant's Shoulders
Isaac Newton famously remarked that all he had achieved was due to 'standing on the shoulders of Giants.'
One of the greatest quotes ever and there have been many giant's shoulders for us to stand upon but at some point in time, someone must take the credit as the inventor of the development that has most advanced mankind.
I would argue that the event that most advanced us was the asteroid that slammed into the Earth 65m years ago which hastened the death of the dinosaurs and allowed space for the growth of the mammals but what single development over the following 65m years has most bought us to where we are today.
There are many contenders which I hand over the prize to temporarily who without there development, we would be much worse off and make it almost impossible for me to create a list of their importance.
Furthest back in our history would be fire, or rather the ability to control fire, the wheel, language, boats, tools and weapons. All, without which, we would not have even began to advance and truly the giants who shoulders we later stood upon.
Then there is the invention of the printing press, astronomy, gunpowder, cartography, the steam engine and electricity, all of which would bring the world to a screeching halt if one of them were uninvented.
As if all those were not enough, we can throw space travel into the equation and that's a pretty decent group of developments and inventions that all have a good shout of being declared the one thing that has most advanced human beings.
It's too big a subject for my mind, especially on a lazy Sunday afternoon, but i can see how without tools, none of the other developments would have been possible so the giant whose shoulders Newton and everyone else has been upon was the first stone age person to use a tool. I think.
One of the greatest quotes ever and there have been many giant's shoulders for us to stand upon but at some point in time, someone must take the credit as the inventor of the development that has most advanced mankind.
I would argue that the event that most advanced us was the asteroid that slammed into the Earth 65m years ago which hastened the death of the dinosaurs and allowed space for the growth of the mammals but what single development over the following 65m years has most bought us to where we are today.
There are many contenders which I hand over the prize to temporarily who without there development, we would be much worse off and make it almost impossible for me to create a list of their importance.
Furthest back in our history would be fire, or rather the ability to control fire, the wheel, language, boats, tools and weapons. All, without which, we would not have even began to advance and truly the giants who shoulders we later stood upon.
Then there is the invention of the printing press, astronomy, gunpowder, cartography, the steam engine and electricity, all of which would bring the world to a screeching halt if one of them were uninvented.
As if all those were not enough, we can throw space travel into the equation and that's a pretty decent group of developments and inventions that all have a good shout of being declared the one thing that has most advanced human beings.
It's too big a subject for my mind, especially on a lazy Sunday afternoon, but i can see how without tools, none of the other developments would have been possible so the giant whose shoulders Newton and everyone else has been upon was the first stone age person to use a tool. I think.
Saturday, 26 March 2011
Why Big Government Is Needed
One argument that seems more of an issue in America than here is the big Government versus small Government debate.
The argument goes that the concept of small Government is more effective as it concentrates only on a few, but important, attributes of society and the economy will flourish without government interference.
Those in favour of a big Government argue that it is only government regulation which keeps a tab on the capitalist market and without them, the huge corporations will ride roughshod over society in order to turn a profit.
You only have to look to see how many companies and corporations have been fined for inappropriate behaviour which has been designed to put one over the consumers so the idea that they should be left to their own devices should fill us all with horror. Do we need reminding of the havoc the lightly regulated financial market has inflicted on the global economy?
Wednesday we were given yet another example of why they should be kept on a very tight leash and the advocates of small Government should be rethinking their arguments.
The British Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osbourne, took 1p off a litre of petrol, effective from 6pm that evening.
Stories soon emerged of petrol stations, aware that the cut was coming, put up their prices by a penny, or more in some cases, and then took it off again at 6pm. Another common rant was the prices going down but not by the full penny.
The AA said: 'One of two of the supermarkets appear to have put prices down but we've also heard that a lot of service stations are selling at the previous day's prices'.
The Government have now pledged to 'watch oil companies like a hawk' to make sure that the 1p a litre is enforced and that is just a tiny example as to why we need a big Government to stop big business ripping us off because if they can get away with it, they will.
The argument goes that the concept of small Government is more effective as it concentrates only on a few, but important, attributes of society and the economy will flourish without government interference.
Those in favour of a big Government argue that it is only government regulation which keeps a tab on the capitalist market and without them, the huge corporations will ride roughshod over society in order to turn a profit.
You only have to look to see how many companies and corporations have been fined for inappropriate behaviour which has been designed to put one over the consumers so the idea that they should be left to their own devices should fill us all with horror. Do we need reminding of the havoc the lightly regulated financial market has inflicted on the global economy?
Wednesday we were given yet another example of why they should be kept on a very tight leash and the advocates of small Government should be rethinking their arguments.
The British Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osbourne, took 1p off a litre of petrol, effective from 6pm that evening.
Stories soon emerged of petrol stations, aware that the cut was coming, put up their prices by a penny, or more in some cases, and then took it off again at 6pm. Another common rant was the prices going down but not by the full penny.
The AA said: 'One of two of the supermarkets appear to have put prices down but we've also heard that a lot of service stations are selling at the previous day's prices'.
The Government have now pledged to 'watch oil companies like a hawk' to make sure that the 1p a litre is enforced and that is just a tiny example as to why we need a big Government to stop big business ripping us off because if they can get away with it, they will.
Thursday, 24 March 2011
And So It Goes On
Citing 'Israeli crimes', Hamas ended its ceasefire and began shooting rockets into Israel last weekend. The next day, Israeli planes carried out air strikes in response. Hamas reply was to fire even more rockets so the Israelis undertook even more air raids, killing 4 civilians which so infuriated the Palestinians that a bomb was detonated outside the main bus station in Jerusalem which the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to respond to 'aggressively'.
And so the cycle starts all over again and each blame each other and missiles and rockets get fired backwards and forwards killing and maiming people who just want to live without worrying if a Palestinian missile or an Israeli bomb is going to come through their roof at any moment.
Anyone who follows these events in the Middle East is familiar with how this cycle works and how it grows bigger and more destructive and only seems designed to keep the decades old conflict alive rather than to end it.
The pro-Palestinians and pro-Israeli supporters can argue forever about who is in the right and who is wrong or how far back to go to determine who started the hostilities but if the conflict is to be resolved, the cycle must end.
But for that to happen, both sides must put peace ahead of politics but both Hamas and the Israelis need conflict with each other. Without Israel for Hamas to rage against, they lose their reason for being and without Hamas for Israel to rage against, Israel lose the reason for building on occupied land.
Yes both sides are to blame and yes i put more of the blame on Israel because Israel is the occupier and oppressor with the Palestinians the occupied and oppressed. Nobody should want to see anyone killed, least of all innocent civilians queuing to catch a bus in Israel or whilst sitting in their own home in Gaza so the commenter's, bloggers and journalists who urge Israel to hit Palestine hard for their bomb attack or justify a rucksack bomb at a Jerusalem bus shelter are just fueling the problem that nobody, on either side, is willing to call a halt to this tit for tat killing which will only end in more hatred and death and makes the chances of peace even more elusive.
And so the cycle starts all over again and each blame each other and missiles and rockets get fired backwards and forwards killing and maiming people who just want to live without worrying if a Palestinian missile or an Israeli bomb is going to come through their roof at any moment.
Anyone who follows these events in the Middle East is familiar with how this cycle works and how it grows bigger and more destructive and only seems designed to keep the decades old conflict alive rather than to end it.
The pro-Palestinians and pro-Israeli supporters can argue forever about who is in the right and who is wrong or how far back to go to determine who started the hostilities but if the conflict is to be resolved, the cycle must end.
But for that to happen, both sides must put peace ahead of politics but both Hamas and the Israelis need conflict with each other. Without Israel for Hamas to rage against, they lose their reason for being and without Hamas for Israel to rage against, Israel lose the reason for building on occupied land.
Yes both sides are to blame and yes i put more of the blame on Israel because Israel is the occupier and oppressor with the Palestinians the occupied and oppressed. Nobody should want to see anyone killed, least of all innocent civilians queuing to catch a bus in Israel or whilst sitting in their own home in Gaza so the commenter's, bloggers and journalists who urge Israel to hit Palestine hard for their bomb attack or justify a rucksack bomb at a Jerusalem bus shelter are just fueling the problem that nobody, on either side, is willing to call a halt to this tit for tat killing which will only end in more hatred and death and makes the chances of peace even more elusive.
Tuesday, 22 March 2011
A Nothing Budget Expected
Budget Day tomorrow and if the speculation is right, it is going to be a mixed bag.
The good news is personal allowance, the amount we earn before paying tax, will be increased by around £600 to £7,475, £250m is being set aside to help first-time home buyers purchase newly built property and a planned rise in fuel duty will be scrapped.
With VAT up to 20%, inflation at 4.4% and the prices of utilities, food, fuel and clothes rising while pay not going up go up by anything like the same extent, it's not expected to be a vintage belt tightening budget because Osbourne doesn't really have anything left to squeeze the masses for.
I like his idea of merging National Insurance (12%) and income tax (20%) because it was time the National Insurance sham was abolished since it's nothing more than just another tax which the Government manipulate so they can keep their promise of not raising income tax. If he sets it at anything other than 32% for the lowest earners though there will be outrage.
Overall, he can't do very much except tinker around the edges and hit the smokers and drinkers which is par for the course on Budget Day. With unemployment soaring and the public sector already being ripped to shreds, he has no room for manoeuvre in that direction and it will not be easy to justify more cuts to save money when his party has just taken us into another war where we are dropping £1 million a pop cruise missiles on Libya.
There is a massive demonstration planned for Saturday against this Governments cuts and students fees and unless Osbourne can pull a rabbit out of his hat tomorrow which will improve the general lot of the majority of households in this country, or hit the well off harder so they pull their weight in his 'all in it together' mantra, there will be much anger on the streets
It's about time we saw some benefits to these austerity measures because so far Osbourne has done nothing but take and offered no carrots while we seem to be in the same position as we were when he took over and that position is the sound of deckchairs being rearranged as the iceberg looms ahead.
The good news is personal allowance, the amount we earn before paying tax, will be increased by around £600 to £7,475, £250m is being set aside to help first-time home buyers purchase newly built property and a planned rise in fuel duty will be scrapped.
With VAT up to 20%, inflation at 4.4% and the prices of utilities, food, fuel and clothes rising while pay not going up go up by anything like the same extent, it's not expected to be a vintage belt tightening budget because Osbourne doesn't really have anything left to squeeze the masses for.
I like his idea of merging National Insurance (12%) and income tax (20%) because it was time the National Insurance sham was abolished since it's nothing more than just another tax which the Government manipulate so they can keep their promise of not raising income tax. If he sets it at anything other than 32% for the lowest earners though there will be outrage.
Overall, he can't do very much except tinker around the edges and hit the smokers and drinkers which is par for the course on Budget Day. With unemployment soaring and the public sector already being ripped to shreds, he has no room for manoeuvre in that direction and it will not be easy to justify more cuts to save money when his party has just taken us into another war where we are dropping £1 million a pop cruise missiles on Libya.
There is a massive demonstration planned for Saturday against this Governments cuts and students fees and unless Osbourne can pull a rabbit out of his hat tomorrow which will improve the general lot of the majority of households in this country, or hit the well off harder so they pull their weight in his 'all in it together' mantra, there will be much anger on the streets
It's about time we saw some benefits to these austerity measures because so far Osbourne has done nothing but take and offered no carrots while we seem to be in the same position as we were when he took over and that position is the sound of deckchairs being rearranged as the iceberg looms ahead.
Nothing To See Here
Psst, Israel, over here.
As everyone else is looking the other way at Libya and Japan, i don't think anyone noticed the air strike where you bombed a Palestinian family home and killed four innocent people and wounded 12.
I also know some of you are worried about Israel facing the same UN fate as Libya for your military action in Gaza and the West Bank to protect the Palestinian population but you don't need be.
You have been getting away with murder for decades so why should they start to want to protect them now?
As everyone else is looking the other way at Libya and Japan, i don't think anyone noticed the air strike where you bombed a Palestinian family home and killed four innocent people and wounded 12.
I also know some of you are worried about Israel facing the same UN fate as Libya for your military action in Gaza and the West Bank to protect the Palestinian population but you don't need be.
You have been getting away with murder for decades so why should they start to want to protect them now?
Monday, 21 March 2011
Blistering Chocolate Barnacles
We went to Belgium last summer and Belgium is famous for many things. Actually it isn't but one thing it is renown for is chocolate and as Belgium is full of shops selling the stuff, we brought a backpack full of the brown wonder as souvenirs for family and friends, not that they saw much of it as most was consumed on the ferry back.
Belgium hasn't got much going for it and it may not have the chocolate for much longer because apparently the world is facing a chocolate shortage.
The majority of the world's cocoa supply comes from West Africa and the average West African farmer has worked out that for the small amount he makes from cocoa trees, he can make more growing palm oil which is increasingly in demand for biofuels.
Tending to cocoa trees is immensely time-consuming, taking up to five years to grow a new crop and that satisfying feeling that his product is contributing to our type 2 diabetes is just not enough anymore.
As new markets open up in Asia for chocolate, the chairman of the Cocoa Research Association has said: 'Chocolate consumption is increasing faster than cocoa production and it's not sustainable. These smallholders earn just 80 cents a day so there is no incentive to replant trees when they die off, and to wait up to five years for a new crop'.
Poor Belgium, it will just have to fall back on it's other famous exports, Tin Tin and Jean Claude Van Damme.
Actually, on second thoughts, you may want to concentrate more on Tin Tin.
Belgium hasn't got much going for it and it may not have the chocolate for much longer because apparently the world is facing a chocolate shortage.
The majority of the world's cocoa supply comes from West Africa and the average West African farmer has worked out that for the small amount he makes from cocoa trees, he can make more growing palm oil which is increasingly in demand for biofuels.
Tending to cocoa trees is immensely time-consuming, taking up to five years to grow a new crop and that satisfying feeling that his product is contributing to our type 2 diabetes is just not enough anymore.
As new markets open up in Asia for chocolate, the chairman of the Cocoa Research Association has said: 'Chocolate consumption is increasing faster than cocoa production and it's not sustainable. These smallholders earn just 80 cents a day so there is no incentive to replant trees when they die off, and to wait up to five years for a new crop'.
Poor Belgium, it will just have to fall back on it's other famous exports, Tin Tin and Jean Claude Van Damme.
Actually, on second thoughts, you may want to concentrate more on Tin Tin.
Saturday, 19 March 2011
Another Wrong Military Intervention
David Cameron has said that: 'the time for action' has come because of Gaddafi ceasefire breaches and 'Colonel Gaddafi has made this happen, he lied to the international community.'
Should we trust Cameron, Obama or Sarkozy? No. Should we trust Gaddafi? No. Should we trust the rebels led by the National Front for Salvation of Libya? No.
None of the above have the ordinary Libyan peoples interests at heart despite why they say they are acting, all have their own agenda and once again it will be the ordinary people of Libya who would pay the heaviest price.
It is the hypocrisy with which the West operate that drives everyone crazy. It wouldn't have gone unnoticed with the speed at which the US condemned Syria yesterday while remaining next to silent on the Saudi military supporting the killing of protesters in Bahrain. The Saudis have even agreed to deploy their planes to Libya to enforce the no-fly-zone while Saudi protesters are brutally oppressed and suppressed in their own country.
And did I hear the UN threaten attacks on Libya for contravening the UN resolution while as we speak, Israel is contravening, and has contravened countless, US resolution with impunity with a supportive US vetoing any condemnation of them.
The armchair generals are out in force again, asking those of us who oppose the West's military intervention in Libya who we are to condemn thousands of innocent people to death by the hands of Gaddafi? My reply is who are they to condemn thousands of people to death by western planes?
There is every chance that this will end up as another debacle for the allies, we have form in this area.
The last time we decided on 'humanitarian intervention', against a tyrant who was slaughtering his own people, we managed to somehow make things even worse and leave the entire country in a mess that it's going to take a generation to recover from. On top of that, the civilian death toll topped a million.
This is a disaster waiting to happen. We'll do what we always do. Charge in, remove the government, get them to 'democratically elect' a western friendly puppet government, then leave, after we're satisfied that the country resources are nice and safe for the West.
This whole thing has nothing to do with promoting democracy or protecting Libyan civilians. It is about promoting western interests by controlling and directing pro-democracy movements in oil rich countries and it stinks.
Should we trust Cameron, Obama or Sarkozy? No. Should we trust Gaddafi? No. Should we trust the rebels led by the National Front for Salvation of Libya? No.
None of the above have the ordinary Libyan peoples interests at heart despite why they say they are acting, all have their own agenda and once again it will be the ordinary people of Libya who would pay the heaviest price.
It is the hypocrisy with which the West operate that drives everyone crazy. It wouldn't have gone unnoticed with the speed at which the US condemned Syria yesterday while remaining next to silent on the Saudi military supporting the killing of protesters in Bahrain. The Saudis have even agreed to deploy their planes to Libya to enforce the no-fly-zone while Saudi protesters are brutally oppressed and suppressed in their own country.
And did I hear the UN threaten attacks on Libya for contravening the UN resolution while as we speak, Israel is contravening, and has contravened countless, US resolution with impunity with a supportive US vetoing any condemnation of them.
The armchair generals are out in force again, asking those of us who oppose the West's military intervention in Libya who we are to condemn thousands of innocent people to death by the hands of Gaddafi? My reply is who are they to condemn thousands of people to death by western planes?
There is every chance that this will end up as another debacle for the allies, we have form in this area.
The last time we decided on 'humanitarian intervention', against a tyrant who was slaughtering his own people, we managed to somehow make things even worse and leave the entire country in a mess that it's going to take a generation to recover from. On top of that, the civilian death toll topped a million.
This is a disaster waiting to happen. We'll do what we always do. Charge in, remove the government, get them to 'democratically elect' a western friendly puppet government, then leave, after we're satisfied that the country resources are nice and safe for the West.
This whole thing has nothing to do with promoting democracy or protecting Libyan civilians. It is about promoting western interests by controlling and directing pro-democracy movements in oil rich countries and it stinks.
Friday, 18 March 2011
Is...
Many years ago a friend and i invented a game to play on Google. You start with 2 random words and you have to take turns changing one of the words to get less hits than the previous person got. If you scored a nil then you lost.
Many hours we spent playing that instead of doing anything constructive and we still play it now occasionally to decide which one of us has to make the coffee or buy the pastries.
Google hasn't changed much all these years later but i do enjoy the feature where you start to type something it the search box and it attempts to guess what you are going to type before you finish.
Because it receives millions and millions of requests per day, it is an excellent way of finding out what's popular and what people are thinking.
We have done the i love and i hate question previously and found out that Obama was both the most loved and most hated person according to the number of Google hits he got but just what are the tens of millions of Google users asking today about the great and good?
if we type in the word 'Is' and then the name of those in the news today we get the questions:
is David Cameron popular, jewish, married
is Obama a muslim, freemason, black
is Maragaret Thatcher dead, dead yet, still alive
is Justin Bieber dead, gay, a virgin
is the Queen german, dead, married
is Charlie Sheen dead, dying, rich
is Tony Blair a freemason, jewish, scottish
is God real, dead, an alien
is Gaddafi in venezuela, finished, jewish
is Lady Gaga a man, dead, gay
There does seem to be a theme where Googlers want to know if someone is dead or Jewish but i love the way the most asked question about Lady Gaga is whether she is a man or not and all everyone wants to know about Margaret Thatcer is whether she has died yet.
Many hours we spent playing that instead of doing anything constructive and we still play it now occasionally to decide which one of us has to make the coffee or buy the pastries.
Google hasn't changed much all these years later but i do enjoy the feature where you start to type something it the search box and it attempts to guess what you are going to type before you finish.
Because it receives millions and millions of requests per day, it is an excellent way of finding out what's popular and what people are thinking.
We have done the i love and i hate question previously and found out that Obama was both the most loved and most hated person according to the number of Google hits he got but just what are the tens of millions of Google users asking today about the great and good?
if we type in the word 'Is' and then the name of those in the news today we get the questions:
is David Cameron popular, jewish, married
is Obama a muslim, freemason, black
is Maragaret Thatcher dead, dead yet, still alive
is Justin Bieber dead, gay, a virgin
is the Queen german, dead, married
is Charlie Sheen dead, dying, rich
is Tony Blair a freemason, jewish, scottish
is God real, dead, an alien
is Gaddafi in venezuela, finished, jewish
is Lady Gaga a man, dead, gay
There does seem to be a theme where Googlers want to know if someone is dead or Jewish but i love the way the most asked question about Lady Gaga is whether she is a man or not and all everyone wants to know about Margaret Thatcer is whether she has died yet.
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
The Problem With Elections
One of the demands of the Liberal Democrats before they agreed to team up with the Conservatives and stab us all in the back was a referendum on the voting system.
Nick Clegg and his cohorts are demanding we switch from the first past the post system we currently where a voter puts an 'X' beside their favoured party on the ballot paper, to an alternative voting system where they rank the candidates on offer. 1 for Labour, 2 for Conservative etc.
The greatest difference i can see is it will be more representative of voters choice, Labour won the 2007 election with only 34% of the country voting for them meaning 66% didn't want them but were stuck with them anyway.
That is a good thing obviously but what grates with me is not the method of how they get in, it's how once they get the keys to the door, they are left alone for 5 years to do what they like.
I would like to see some mechanism where an election is triggered if the voters don't like what they are up to.
As things stand, the Lib Dem/Conservative coalition Government can slash and burn everything as much as they like for the next 4 years and there is nothing we can do about it.
That's what i want to see changed by having a threshold where if a Governments popularity sinks below 30%, the country holds another election. All the polls, and we have lots of them, would be gathered and analysed to make one final running percentage.
Alternatively, why not reduce the limit and hold elections every 2 years so we can remove them before any real damage is caused and scandals are not half forgotten by time.
It would also force them to consider things more carefully instead of front loading their time with all the bad decisions so they can offer election time bribes when they come into their final year.
We can tinker with how we elect our Prime Ministers all we want but it won't stop any of them being liabilities when they get in power. Isn't that so Mr Clegg.
Nick Clegg and his cohorts are demanding we switch from the first past the post system we currently where a voter puts an 'X' beside their favoured party on the ballot paper, to an alternative voting system where they rank the candidates on offer. 1 for Labour, 2 for Conservative etc.
The greatest difference i can see is it will be more representative of voters choice, Labour won the 2007 election with only 34% of the country voting for them meaning 66% didn't want them but were stuck with them anyway.
That is a good thing obviously but what grates with me is not the method of how they get in, it's how once they get the keys to the door, they are left alone for 5 years to do what they like.
I would like to see some mechanism where an election is triggered if the voters don't like what they are up to.
As things stand, the Lib Dem/Conservative coalition Government can slash and burn everything as much as they like for the next 4 years and there is nothing we can do about it.
That's what i want to see changed by having a threshold where if a Governments popularity sinks below 30%, the country holds another election. All the polls, and we have lots of them, would be gathered and analysed to make one final running percentage.
Alternatively, why not reduce the limit and hold elections every 2 years so we can remove them before any real damage is caused and scandals are not half forgotten by time.
It would also force them to consider things more carefully instead of front loading their time with all the bad decisions so they can offer election time bribes when they come into their final year.
We can tinker with how we elect our Prime Ministers all we want but it won't stop any of them being liabilities when they get in power. Isn't that so Mr Clegg.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)