Gordons Speech

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#1
Very, very obvious that - despite the fact that Labour has now sent us into two full-on wars - there was no commitment to extra defence spending in Gordon's speech. Notwithstanding the enormous budget deficit that he has run up, he was able to recklessly promise increases in domestic public expenditure calculated to buy up the doley vote. I suppose the assumption is that anyone with a real commitment to the long-term future of this country would never vote Labour anyway, so we can all just fcuk ourselves.

Thanks for nothing Gordy.
 
#2
Sian Williams asked him a few interesting questions on the BBC news just now, and I am fukced if I understood his answer
 
#3
And so I say to the British people the election to come will not be about my future – it's about your future. Your job. Your home. Your children's school. Your hospital. Your community. Your country.
-Quite right, Gordon, but that's why you'll be binned. Call it a happy coincidence if it helps you sleep at night.
 
#4
Interviewed by Adam Boulton this morning on Sky News and when pressed on equipment for Afghan he stuck with the line: "Ask any Military person and they will tell you that no UOR's have been turned down." Repeated ad nauseum.

He's on Today in a few minutes..
 
#5
cpunk said:
Very, very obvious that - despite the fact that Labour has now sent us into two full-on wars - there was no commitment to extra defence spending in Gordon's speech. Notwithstanding the enormous budget deficit that he has run up, he was able to recklessly promise increases in domestic public expenditure calculated to buy up the doley vote. I suppose the assumption is that anyone with a real commitment to the long-term future of this country would never vote Labour anyway, so we can all just fcuk ourselves.

Thanks for nothing Gordy.
What is the goal? More weapons or less coffins? How many British soldiers were killed in Iraq since mr.Brown became a PM?

There is an inertion in politics. You can not turn a big ship to opposite direction just in few minutes.

With the Conservatives the blood bath in Afganistan will continue. As for the Labour then at least there is a hope to diminish loses in Afganistan.
 
#6
Ah Sergy
That Troops die and get mangled in Combat is a fact of life, as you know and as all Troops know, when they Sign On for Service in Her Majesty's Armed Forces.
Few troops suffered as result of Bad policy as did the troops of the USSR during Joe Stalin's time but they still did their duty for the Motherland.
We folks on this board are rightly angry, that Her Majesty's Government have committed British Armed Forces to so many wars But have and are failing to finance these actions.
Afghanistan has now gone on Longer then the Great Patriotic War, and yet the troops are still not being provided with the equipment required and material of less then best quality will come along in years to come when better quality was available and could have been in use Now.
john
 
#7
KGB_resident said:
cpunk said:
Very, very obvious that - despite the fact that Labour has now sent us into two full-on wars - there was no commitment to extra defence spending in Gordon's speech. Notwithstanding the enormous budget deficit that he has run up, he was able to recklessly promise increases in domestic public expenditure calculated to buy up the doley vote. I suppose the assumption is that anyone with a real commitment to the long-term future of this country would never vote Labour anyway, so we can all just fcuk ourselves.

Thanks for nothing Gordy.
What is the goal? More weapons or less coffins? How many British soldiers were killed in Iraq since mr.Brown became a PM?

There is an inertion in politics. You can not turn a big ship to opposite direction just in few minutes.

With the Conservatives the blood bath in Afganistan will continue. As for the Labour then at least there is a hope to diminish loses in Afganistan.

Sergei old chap, the issue we have with Labour is that under their less than stellar 12 year reign, we have been in more wars than in any other comparable period of time in British history. B'Liar holds the record for the most wars under one PM!
 
#8
jonwilly said:
Ah Sergy
That Troops die and get mangled in Combat is a fact of life, as you know and as all Troops know, when they Sign On for Service in Her Majesty's Armed Forces.
Few troops suffered as result of Bad policy as did the troops of the USSR during Joe Stalin's time but they still did their duty for the Motherland.
We folks on this board are rightly angry, that Her Majesty's Government have committed British Armed Forces to so many wars But have and are failing to finance these actions.
Afghanistan has now gone on Longer then the Great Patriotic War, and yet the troops are still not being provided with the equipment required and material of less then best quality will come along in years to come when better quality was available and could have been in use Now.
john
John, I would like to quote mr.Brown's speech

I got a letter from Diane, a mother from Rugby who wrote to me saying her life had been saved because the NHS used its extra investment to reduce the age for breast cancer screening.

Before she would have had to wait until 50 - and her surgeon told her that if she had, she'd probably be dead. But thanks to the changes we made, Diane was diagnosed early, treated early, and was back at work within three weeks.
And I would like to ask you and all our friends. Suppose that you have the best possible equipment in expense of early cancer tests inluding mothers of young soldiers. Money do not appear from the air. What would you feel?

Of course it is a bit personal. My father was diagnosed lung cancer a year and half ago. He had 10 courses of chemotherapy (real cost of each more than 3000 Pounds). He is still alive and I hope he will live years more.

I feel that mr.Brown understands that the war in Afghanistan is needless but Washington is too powerfull and for political reasons he agrees to continue participation of the UK in the war.
 
#9
Oil_Slick said:
Sergei old chap, the issue we have with Labour is that under their less than stellar 12 year reign, we have been in more wars than in any other comparable period of time in British history. B'Liar holds the record for the most wars under one PM!
Let's look at the causes. No one of these wars was initiated by the UK. We should thank our American friends.

Now suppose that the UK has Conservative government these years. What war they would not join? Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq?

And I would like to say you more. As I remember mr.Blair firmly said that his government would not wage a war agains Iran. But I'm not sure about the Tories. They were (and are) able to follow Washington blindly.
 
#10
KGB_resident said:
Oil_Slick said:
Sergei old chap, the issue we have with Labour is that under their less than stellar 12 year reign, we have been in more wars than in any other comparable period of time in British history. B'Liar holds the record for the most wars under one PM!
Let's look at the causes. No one of these wars was initiated by the UK. We should thank our American friends.

Now suppose that the UK has Conservative government these years. What war they would not join? Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq?

And I would like to say you more. As I remember mr.Blair firmly said that his government would not wage a war agains Iran. But I'm not sure about the Tories. They were (and are) able to follow Washington blindly.

Have you seen the thread about Iran? David Milliband has refused to rule out military operations against Iran...
 
#11
dropshortjock said:
KGB_resident said:
Oil_Slick said:
Sergei old chap, the issue we have with Labour is that under their less than stellar 12 year reign, we have been in more wars than in any other comparable period of time in British history. B'Liar holds the record for the most wars under one PM!
Let's look at the causes. No one of these wars was initiated by the UK. We should thank our American friends.

Now suppose that the UK has Conservative government these years. What war they would not join? Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq?

And I would like to say you more. As I remember mr.Blair firmly said that his government would not wage a war agains Iran. But I'm not sure about the Tories. They were (and are) able to follow Washington blindly.

Have you seen the thread about Iran? David Milliband has refused to rule out military operations against Iran...
Let's look what really mr.Miliband said

No sane person looks at the military question of engagement with Iran with anything other than real concern. That's why we always say we are 100% committed to the diplomatic track.
100% means that there is no room for other (including military) options.

But Miliband declined to describe military action as inconceivable, the word used by Jack Straw when he was foreign secretary.
In the future new American president could unleash a war with Iran. So in theory a military action against Iran is conceivable but mr.Miliband did not hint that the UK could participate in the action.
 
#12
It is a full text.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8281399.stm

I believe that mr.Brown's speech is remarkable. I propose to read it carefully.

Mr.Brown clearly says that there is the hard working majority and the privileged few and his party will be on the side of the majority.
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#13
KGB_resident said:
With the Conservatives the blood bath in Afganistan will continue. As for the Labour then at least there is a hope to diminish loses in Afganistan.
Actually, the effect will be the opposite. Brown is content to allow the current casualty rate rather than having to cut hand-outs and freebies to potential Labour voters. The reason? Service personnel and their families make up a tiny proportion of the electorate: benefit recipients and NHS valetudinarians form a much bigger group and are more likely to be pathetically grateful for generous Mr Brown's largesse: after all, it isn't their taxes which are going to go up: they don't pay any (like Sven). Keeping us in Afghanistan means that President Obama does occasionally have to talk to Gordon in public, and that plays well with the Guardianistas and makes us the Euro-partner du jour. It's a win-win for New Labour, shame about those who've been killed and maimed.
 
#14
KGB_resident said:
It is a full text.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8281399.stm

I believe that mr.Brown's speech is remarkable. I propose to read it carefully.

Mr.Brown clearly says that there is the hard working majority and the privileged few and his party will be on the side of the majority.
Leopard trying to change it's spots.

Labour has consistently failed to be on the side of the hard working majority over the last 12 years. the list is endless...

eg destroyed personal pension provision, wrong on 10 pence tax, wrong on ID cards,......(see earlier threads for details)

His speech failed completely to address the debt problems of this country - Britain now owes £38,000 per working person, on top of all individual borrowing and debts - what are they doing for the future? Spending more........

Don't waste your time reading it........

Odo
 
#15
cpunk said:
KGB_resident said:
With the Conservatives the blood bath in Afganistan will continue. As for the Labour then at least there is a hope to diminish loses in Afganistan.
Actually, the effect will be the opposite. Brown is content to allow the current casualty rate rather than having to cut hand-outs and freebies to potential Labour voters. The reason? Service personnel and their families make up a tiny proportion of the electorate: benefit recipients and NHS valetudinarians form a much bigger group and are more likely to be pathetically grateful for generous Mr Brown's largesse: after all, it isn't their taxes which are going to go up: they don't pay any (like Sven). Keeping us in Afghanistan means that President Obama does occasionally have to talk to Gordon in public, and that plays well with the Guardianistas and makes us the Euro-partner du jour. It's a win-win for New Labour, shame about those who've been killed and maimed.

That, and the fact that by and large, most of us connected with the MOD won't vote for them anyway.
 
#16
I watched this speech and I couldn't believe how Gordo el Swampo managed to perfectly embody the expression "empty words" for an hour. Not about my future my fückin' arrse!

His dramatic declarations of what his (raiding) party's accomplished, with first the right arm going out, then the left, then the right again, should have been followed by an honest, rhetorical question: "And what have been the tangible results of all these "accomplishments" for the UK public? Absolutely fück-all!". He's a lying, slimy, vicious, vindictive, self-serving arrsehole of the highest order. Insofar he's eminently qualified as a politician.

MsG
 
#19
cpunk said:
KGB_resident said:
With the Conservatives the blood bath in Afganistan will continue. As for the Labour then at least there is a hope to diminish loses in Afganistan.
Actually, the effect will be the opposite. Brown is content to allow the current casualty rate rather than having to cut hand-outs and freebies to potential Labour voters. The reason? Service personnel and their families make up a tiny proportion of the electorate: benefit recipients and NHS valetudinarians form a much bigger group and are more likely to be pathetically grateful for generous Mr Brown's largesse: after all, it isn't their taxes which are going to go up: they don't pay any (like Sven). Keeping us in Afghanistan means that President Obama does occasionally have to talk to Gordon in public, and that plays well with the Guardianistas and makes us the Euro-partner du jour. It's a win-win for New Labour, shame about those who've been killed and maimed.
Of course you have a point. Hower HM armed forces are not something solid. There are officers who came from the upper classes and who will vote for the Conservatives whatever mr.Brown would say. But ordinary soldiers frequently come from and will return to the working class. For them, for their parents and relatives social benefits are essential.

You suggest that the army needs more and more expensive, exclusive equipment, more money. And you are right. Well, but say what spendings should be cutin this case? I have an impression that generals, the MoD could redistribute funds more effectively.

In other words: is the defence budget too small or is it being spent in the wrong way? And who is responsible: the PM or top commanders who must know what the army really needs?
 
#20
KGB_resident said:
cpunk said:
KGB_resident said:
With the Conservatives the blood bath in Afganistan will continue. As for the Labour then at least there is a hope to diminish loses in Afganistan.
Actually, the effect will be the opposite. Brown is content to allow the current casualty rate rather than having to cut hand-outs and freebies to potential Labour voters. The reason? Service personnel and their families make up a tiny proportion of the electorate: benefit recipients and NHS valetudinarians form a much bigger group and are more likely to be pathetically grateful for generous Mr Brown's largesse: after all, it isn't their taxes which are going to go up: they don't pay any (like Sven). Keeping us in Afghanistan means that President Obama does occasionally have to talk to Gordon in public, and that plays well with the Guardianistas and makes us the Euro-partner du jour. It's a win-win for New Labour, shame about those who've been killed and maimed.
Of course you have a point. Hower HM armed forces are not something solid. There are officers who came from the upper classes and who will vote for the Conservatives whatever mr.Brown would say. But ordinary soldiers frequently come from and will return to the working class. For them, for their parents and relatives social benefits are essential.

You suggest that the army needs more and more expensive, exclusive equipment, more money. And you are right. Well, but say what spendings should be cutin this case? I have an impression that generals, the MoD could redistribute funds more effectively.

In other words: is the defence budget too small or is it being spent in the wrong way? And who is responsible: the PM or top commanders who must know what the army really needs?
Answer: the defence budget is far, far too small.
Result: the three services being forced to scrabble around for what they can from an ever-shrinking pot.
Perhaps removing cretinous jobs like "gender-re-alignment officers" might free up more funds. However, these jobs create a loyal voting nucleus that realise that their job security relies on on Labour being in power.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top