egafd.com

Sam Slater wrote:

> 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.
>
planeterotica wrote:

Well i disagree because if Gordon Brown voted for these casinos at the time knowing full well that he would later veto them and allowing these city council to waste millions of pounds of taxpayers money in the promotion and planning of them then he is a deadbeat and not the prudent man he claims to be !cool!

That is of course, your opinion, but that opinion doesn't mean you have to disagree with my post.

Who isn't a deadbeat, and befitting enough to be our PM Graham?

Sam Slater wrote:

> That is of course, your opinion, but that opinion doesn't mean
> you have to disagree with my post.
>
> Who isn't a deadbeat, and befitting enough to be our PM
> Graham?
>
planeterotica wrote:

Well Gordon Brown isnt because nobody voted for him to be PM and as far as i am concerned he therefoe has no right to be in charge of the country, he got in via the backdoor and will probably leave the same way once he has fucked this country up even more than it already is !thumbsdown!

Graham.........I wasn't disagreeing (though I do disagree) on this occasion; merely asking who you think should be PM.

Sam Slater wrote:

> Graham.........I wasn't disagreeing (though I do disagree) on
> this occasion; merely asking who you think should be PM.
>
planeterotica wrote:

Well if they had held a general election after Bliar retired we would have found out who the people of this country wanted to lead them, its called democracy creeping in through the back door is not ,thats how Hitler came to power !thumbsdown!

Graham, we voted Labour into power as a party, not Blair.

Anyway, regardless of opinion, the country voted Blair into power at the same time as public opinion said he should resign..........work that one out!

It kinda confirms my point, and backs up the facts.

Labour was voted in, not Blair. We vote for a party, not a PM.

Sam Slater wrote:

> Graham, we voted Labour into power as a party, not Blair.
>
> Anyway, regardless of opinion, the country voted Blair into
> power at the same time as public opinion said he should
> resign..........work that one out!
>
> It kinda confirms my point, and backs up the facts.
>
> Labour was voted in, not Blair. We vote for a party, not a PM.
>
planeterotica wrote:

The country voted for the Labour party with Blair as the leader not Gormless Gordon, so you are wrong and they should now hold a general election which would be the proper and democratic way to decide who the country wants as PM !cool!

Thats my point as well, we already know the Facts, ie-: A Party is voted in
as Nu Labour were, and the leader at the time was Blair, he bottles it and decides to leave both party and constituency, after dragging us into a war we can never win, then the only candidate to put himself forward for Blairs Job was GB, as no one contested him, by default he is now the PM, these are facts, opinions are different and it,s my opinion that if a serving PM leaves the post before the end of his term, it's akin to a constitutional crisis, so a General election should be called for, it does not matter one jot if this has been the practice for decades, one can have an opinion, and mine is that there should be a general election, also ministers have frequently resigned over issues as well as crossed the floor, I can recall Heseltine quiting, he had a dodgy haircut but he had principles, also everyone, even Warren has a right to disagree with the mechanics of govenment, and thats what I am doing, a. I dont think GB is a principled man and b. He's a lightwieght debater.