egafd.com

Casinos super or otherwise would have a negative impact that we are better off without. Like the lottery they would have drained a lot of money out of our economy without even the token good deeds of Camelot.
Maybe Browns decision will signal an end to the cronyism that Blair was so fond off.

Well as i stated in my original post i have no interest in the casinos my point is about Brown himself, it is obvious that he voted for these at the time just to keep his job in the cabinet and to ensure he then went on to become PM, if he had any backbone he would have said at the time he was opposed to them and risk being kicked out of office by Blair which would have meant he would not have been a cert to become PM therefore he is a spineless scumbag who puts himself first and couldnt give a fuck for others, he should resign now as he cannot be trusted but of course he wont !thumbsdown!

"he is a spineless scumbag who puts himself first and couldnt give a fuck for others, he should resign now as he cannot be trusted but of course he wont "

Sheer poetry.

warren zevon rip wrote:
>
> There is plainly an element of hypocrisy from our point of view
> about the concept of collective responsibility, but it has been
> an accepted part of the British political system for 200 years,
> and GB is not the first and won't be the last to hide his
> disagreemets on a policy in the interests if unity. If you are
> genuinely interested in politics, rather than mindless
> name-calling, you will see GB is hardly unique in this.
>
planeterotica wrote:

I stand by what i said Warren, if Gormless Gordon couldnt stand up to Tony Bliar over an issue like casinos then what faith can the people of the UK have in him to stand up to other world leaders over more serious matters, if he felt that strongly against casinos that he now has to do a U turn then he should have made his feelings known at the time and not voted for them, the man has no backbone and is not fit for purpose and he should go now !thumbsdown!

warren zevon rip wrote:
>
> Just to reiterate. Every cabinet minister (in every party)
> ever has disagreed at some point with a majority decision made
> by the cabinet. But they have backed the decision publicly.

planeterotica wrote:

Warren that is not true as many a cabinet minister has been sacked or resigned before they would give backing to an issue that they totally disagreed with but Gordon Brown is not one of these as he has put his political career first and the high moral values that he claims to hold come second because at the time he gave his backing for these casinos it was not assured that he would become PM and therefore there was no guarantee that he could later force a U turn, he is not fit for purpose !thumbsdown!

To be fair Graham.........when I'm out with a few friends we hardly ever agree on which pub to frequent next! God knows what it's like in getting people to agree on such important issues!

If someone resigned everytime there was disagreement on some policy or other then the cabinet would be in a continuous state of flux and disorientation.

I actually think resigning would be even more spineless, because that's giving in. At least disagreeing but staying within the cabinet means you have a little influence on future matters (like Brown does have now, while continual resignations would just leave a cabinet of 'yes men'.

Hardly a healthy cabinet befitting the UK.

As someone who deals with gamblers and other addicts for a job I am quite happy. However the Manchester project would have regenerated a large slice of derelict land and provided plenty of jobs.

As for our new PM, in the words of Mr Dudley "Clive" Moore, basically he is a cunt. He has buttfucked our pensions and now fancies finishing the job off.