Page 1 of 1
ed milliband
Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 9:07 pm
by eboswan
why does he look more like a spitting image puppet than a possible future prime minister
I just cant listen too his nostril voice
Re: ed milliband
Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 9:18 pm
by Geordie
His brother definitely wins in the looks dept, but I'm slowly warming towards him as a politician.
That don't take a lot as I'd rather have Ken Dodd than Cameron and his sidekick Clegg.
Re: ed milliband
Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:12 pm
by Blackbaronfish
Geordie wrote:His brother definitely wins in the looks dept, but I'm slowly warming towards him as a politician.
That don't take a lot as I'd rather have Ken Dodd than Cameron and his sidekick Clegg.
Be careful what you wish for
BBF
Re: ed milliband
Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:13 pm
by Axelrod
Always wanted to vote Labour . Never been able to afford it. dave
Re: ed milliband
Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:05 pm
by Gixxerboy
In all honesty I don't think you could make one good one out of all of them put together.
Re: ed milliband
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:24 am
by Blackbaronfish
If you reduced their pay and benefits I wonder how many would still want to carry on because "they want to make a difference" and have your best interests at heart
BBF
Re: ed milliband
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:52 am
by raygun
Blackbaronfish wrote:If you reduced their pay and benefits I wonder how many would still want to carry on because "they want to make a difference" and have your best interests at heart
BBF
I feel a little different.
I think that M.P's should have a 25% pay increase. Then their number reduced by half. That would give them more money and save us money. The House of Lords should be reduced to 100 Peers but they could keep their attendance allowance. That would leave over 400 people to Govern us Nationally. The USA can do it with a similar number but a 5 times greater population.
We would save money and have less earache
ATB
Ray.
Re: ed milliband
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:42 pm
by Timmytree
raygun wrote:Blackbaronfish wrote:If you reduced their pay and benefits I wonder how many would still want to carry on because "they want to make a difference" and have your best interests at heart
BBF
I feel a little different.
I think that M.P's should have a 25% pay increase. Then their number reduced by half. That would give them more money and save us money. The House of Lords should be reduced to 100 Peers but they could keep their attendance allowance. That would leave over 400 people to Govern us Nationally. The USA can do it with a similar number but a 5 times greater population.
We would save money and have less earache
ATB
Ray.
Put them on an hourly rate and only pay for attendance in the house.
Re: ed milliband
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:45 pm
by granville
paid by results , save us load and nothing to pay if they did not get the country back in credit.
Re: ed milliband
Posted: Sat May 02, 2015 4:02 pm
by Phil B
raygun wrote:Blackbaronfish wrote:If you reduced their pay and benefits I wonder how many would still want to carry on because "they want to make a difference" and have your best interests at heart
BBF
I feel a little different.
I think that M.P's should have a 25% pay increase. Then their number reduced by half. That would give them more money and save us money. The House of Lords should be reduced to 100 Peers but they could keep their attendance allowance. That would leave over 400 people to Govern us Nationally. The USA can do it with a similar number but a 5 times greater population.
We would save money and have less earache
ATB
Ray.
The US - the finest government that money can buy!