End of an era

<confused>
was it compulsory?
did you get a decent payoff

were you a Connect member!

 

No, *I* was the one doing the asking.

Enough to take a year off & spend every day trail riding or
windsurfing. Then got a job in a tiny IT company (4 people including
me) & relished not having to put up with the bullshit of places like BT
anymore.

**** no, I don't do unions.

 

Well that's all I said. They didn't do compulsory redundancies. Only natural
shrinkage and voluntary.

Dirty right wing Tory ****.

 

I voted Labour in the first two elections after I left BT!

 

I may have done. Once. Possibly.

 

Exactly. To clarify; I'm referring to the build-up to the crisis, during
which every bugger and his dog was afloat on an iceberg of cheap credit
fuelled by the banks at the instigation of cack-handed government folk
(in some cases taken along for the ride) or vice-versa.
I'm utterly sure that no matter what stripe of government, they'd have
done the same and all the hand-wringing in the world wouldn't have
stopped it.
****'s sake it's as if there had never been an economic cycle before and
everybody was living in Cloud Cuckoo Land and that ain't a river in
Egypt.

"An end to Boom and Bust". Yeah, righty-ho.n

 

There's always Brighthouse - Revisited.

 

You may be shocked by this reply but no I don't. I'm no fan of where
we have got to but we have to have a government. The politicians have
worked within the rules to try to give us one and they have to get on
with things as they see them and in response to the election result.
I think a Labour / Liberal coalition would not have had any legitimacy
with the voters and would have been subject to a never ending
onslaught of negative press and public opinion. It could never have
functioned in that environment as investors would have taken flight.
It's reassuring that some in the Labour Party recognised that risk and
decided opposition is the correct place for them now.

I just really think it will be extraordinarily difficult for the
respective party leaders to keep their MPs and their party members
under control. I think we are due some very nasty decisions about
public services and on other key policy issues which will really
stretch the coalition to possible breaking point. It also means that
the opposition parties have two targets to aim at which will make the
next election very interesting indeed. The council election results
in London also suggest a tantalising battle for the Mayoralty in 2012
but that's a long way off.

 

Surely you could babysit while F pops round to Krusty's...

 

Not shocked, but definitely (pleasantly) surprised. What does shock me,
sitting here with the news on iPlayer, is how many policies they
already seem to have agreed on. Trident & the immigration cap have been
added to the list now apparently.

I think you're the first anti-Tory person I've heard say that, other
than a few Labour MPs.

 

They have agreed to scrap Trident? really?

I think it's a good system with a place in a don't **** with me strategy.
But as was observed here nobody would have the guts to use it so what's the
point? Save the money.

Obama might not like it but considering his recent statements he would have
to put on his best forced smile and applaud.

 

The reverse.

"The two sides also agreed a commitment to a replacement for the Trident
nuclear missile system but the programme will be scrutinised for value
for money."

So perhaps not a direct, equivalent, replacement.

Might still save a significant amount.

Depends on the bottom line of what actually gets put in place.

--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Yamaha WR250Z/Supermoto "Old Gimmer's Hillclimber" |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

 

No, agreed to keep it. At least I think that's what they said, I was
only partially listening with one ear.

 

Oh dear. The Lib party members won't like that at all.

 

Hopefully they'll be pragmatic about it. They've got a deputy PM & more
cabinet seats than you'd expect from their vote percentage. They've
done pretty bloody well out of the deal really.

 

Britain has nuclear weapons because France has them.

Why would he care either way?

 

Seriously?

 

It's business for American companies

 

Oh come on, who else is more likely to go to war with us

 

Just about everyone other than Switzerland I would've thought.