What Danny Alexander’s really saying

Sterling could be plunged into the abyss, and Scotland would face unprecedented austerity if country votes ‘Yes’, warns warns Treasury minister


Oh please
, PUHLEEEZE, don’t vote yes, I’ll lose my seat and have to get a real job.

8 comments on “What Danny Alexander’s really saying

  1. Has the Establishment promised that planes will fall from the sky as the sellers of Y2K upgrades promised? It’s lovely to watch the political classes panicking.

  2. I bumped, literally, into Alexander once outside a tube station. I was utterly hammered after a night out on the gin, and had half a second to come up with something terribly witty. Can’t say I covered myself in glory the best I could come up with was “HAHA YOU’RE SHIT!”

    At least I think it was him. Pretty sure – 80% certain. If not then I own an apology to the red-headed chap outside Clapham Common.

  3. I like to think that had it been me hammered on gin (which was often when I worked in the City) that I’d have retained my sparkling wit and called him a big fvcking ginger Wookiee.

  4. Ljh, “Has the Establishment promised that planes will fall from the sky as the sellers of Y2K upgrades promised? ”

    People I know in the software business said that the reason planes didn’t fall from the sky – plus a host of less dramatic catastrophes that didn’t happen – is precisely because all through the 1990’s they worked long, hard and ultimately successfully to identify and solve potential problems before they happened.

    I bet you wish you could say the same for Alex Salmond.

  5. @Natalie Solent
    Really the main Y2K problem was with COBOL software running the financial system. Other software doesn’t tend to store dates in that manner. But you’re quite right that there was a serious problem that people were engaged in fixing right down to the wire.

  6. So anyway, exactly which bit of our “constitution” entitles Gordon Brown to rewrite it on our behalf? I’m just wondering.

    “What do you call a beaker full of shit?”

    “Danny Alexander!”

  7. @Richard Allan..

    The problem wasn’t with COBOL itself – the actual spec of the language in the run-up to 2000 didn’t have a definition for “date” so it was up to the system designers and programmers to invent their own… Thus, it was caused by the parsimoniousness (I think I’ve spelled that right!) of the programmers, aided and abetted by the very high cost of storage in “the good old days” in specifying the “year” component of a stored date using only two digits (ie ddmmyy or yymmdd or whatever barmy system the yanks use). In 1970 saving 2 digits on every stored date added up to a lot of money.

    It was fixed very simply by changing to 4-digit years. Unfortunately, as this was “feature” of many legacy systems there were an awful lot of programs to change and check out! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.