Brown's resigned, but...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
pete wrote:
Excellent recipe for disaster.

I wonder if someone was doing a spot of long-term strategic thinking. By
tipping the balance of power in Cameron's favour, the libs get a weaker
position in the new govt. However their MPs are still committed to it
but become essentially invisible members of a conservative
administration. Come the next election their lack of influence means
there will be fewer people willing to vote for them as they become
synonyous with conservatism. It also means that in the run-up to the
next election any leaders debate couldn't really be held between 3
leaders, as 2 of them are part of the same government. Hmmm.

Indeed. Also, Cameron seems happy to blame Brown exclusively for this
recession so no doubt the country will blame him for the measures he takes
to get out of it.


Would serve him right.

On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:28:42 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Graham C
wrote:

What is the difference between a Labour mike and a Tory mike ?

Labour ones catch unguarded remarks in cars.

Rod.

NIce one !