"Labour has a good record on defence"

#1
http://www.labourlist.org/labour-defence-record-proud-good-james-mills

Furthermore, anyone who has anger for the supply of British personnel in the recent Iraq War, only has to look back to the first Gulf War where British forces were so poorly supplied they were first labelled “the borrowers” by our allies.

Contrast this with the current situation; the UK is currently the second highest spender in the world on defence, and Labour has increased the pay levels in the armed forces to an all time high. Plus, the Defence budget has experienced its longest period of sustained real growth for over thirty years. In the run up to the last election the Conservatives only pledged an increase of £2.5 billion, based on “efficiency savings” within the MoD, compared to the fully costed and Labour-met pledge of a £3.5 billion budget increase.
What a load of twaddle. Interesting though that this is the first post in ages about Defence by a Labour activist on the site whereas the equivalent Tory and even Lib Dem sites mention Defence fairly regularly.
 
#2
Lies, lies and damned statistics
I wouldn't trust zanu liebour to tell me whether it was day or night without getting it wrong 99 times out of 100.
 
#3
Geore Orwell predicted "Doublethink" The Labour Party has perfected the concept.

The really sad thing is that there are still people out there like Ashie and Sven and Parapapuk who believe the lies.

Shakes head sadly.
 
#4
The only defence these ******* are good at is their own backs when caught fiddling the tax payer
 
#6
Yes but Liebour wasn't immune and they did cover each others backs, plus the baroness scotland (I refuse to use caps for irrelevant two faced shits)
 
#7
llech said:
re-stilly said:
The only defence these ******* are good at is their own backs when caught fiddling the tax payer
Hang on a minute its wasnt just labour!
There mostly as bad as each other, yes there a few that do the job without fleecing the public purse BUT they 'all' knew what was going on of which angered the public

Defence is'nt Liebour's strongest policy, they've already proved how incompetent & slow they've been with outspoken & generals resigning!

IMO: Liebour's still a disgrace, I think the country can't wait to see the back of them :evil:
 
F

fozzy

Guest
#9
ninja-lewis said:
http://www.labourlist.org/labour-defence-record-proud-good-james-mills

Furthermore, anyone who has anger for the supply of British personnel in the recent Iraq War, only has to look back to the first Gulf War where British forces were so poorly supplied they were first labelled “the borrowers” by our allies.

Contrast this with the current situation; the UK is currently the second highest spender in the world on defence, and Labour has increased the pay levels in the armed forces to an all time high. Plus, the Defence budget has experienced its longest period of sustained real growth for over thirty years. In the run up to the last election the Conservatives only pledged an increase of £2.5 billion, based on “efficiency savings” within the MoD, compared to the fully costed and Labour-met pledge of a £3.5 billion budget increase.
What a load of twaddle. Interesting though that this is the first post in ages about Defence by a Labour activist on the site whereas the equivalent Tory and even Lib Dem sites mention Defence fairly regularly.
So that Kevlar Body Armour I eventually got second hand in theatre in 2003 was a figment of my imagination?

And I must have been delusional when I had to lend it to someone else, because there wasn't enough to go around?

And totally out of my tree, when I had to hand it back to the QM at the end of tour, before being driven to the APOD through Basra town in the back of a Heli-Bedford?

Just remind me who held the posts of Prime Minister and Chancellor at the time?

But hey - Labour have a great record!
 
#10
Furthermore, anyone who has anger for the supply of British personnel in the recent Iraq War, only has to look back to the first Gulf War where British forces were so poorly supplied they were first labelled “the borrowers” by our allies.
Actually, in GW1 the govt opened it's wallet and said 'get whatever you need' we 'borrowed' very little of the U.S. apart from the usual cots and the marines parkas. TBH, I had too much kit, and wanted for little.
The term 'Borrowers' was given in the recent Iraq and Afghan conflicts, so it's a blatent lie on the part of the Labour spin machine this one.
And considering the film 'The Borrowers' (there are 2 versions) were released in 92 and 97 it is doubtful that the Americans ever gave us a nickname based on what was until then a generally obscure childrens book.
God! I hate those lying socialist pri**s!
 

chimera

LE
Moderator
#11
Spot on speedy - the expression was coined in Gulf War 2 - actually by the media. I don't recall ever having heard a US soldier using the term. On TELIC 1 the US Marine Exped Force were very pleased to see 1 Armd Div turn up - we had more MBT than they had for a start!

It is amazing how Labour rewrites history. UK forces were badly equipped at the start of TELIC because Blair had committed us to war behind the scenes but didnt have the balls to front up to his party and Westminster and admit it early enough for the planners and procurers get on with the job.

And to have a SofS in DfID (Clare Short) who refused to allow her people to conduct post conflict planning for Iraq beyond a low level humanitarian relief operation is another little quirk that has been airbrushed out of history.
 
#12
The original quote is indeed a load of dog toffee, in the time honoured political tradition of highlighting things that show your Party in a good light whilst blithely ignoring anything negative.

However, many people will remember the years when BAOR was run on something less than a shoestring; so much so that the rest of the army had to be raided to put a couple of armoured brigades into the field for GW1. Had the Falklands War not popped up and had there not been a continuing need for a significant military presence in Northern Ireland, the situation could have been a whole lot worse. And who can forget 'Options for Change' and 'Front Line First'? The Tories haven't been quite the friends of the forces that they sometime paint themselves as.

I am no fan of New Labour but I'm not a Tory either. I suspect that a lot of people feel that way - which begs the question, where the fcuk do I put my cross next time?
 
#13
Oh how the great and not good in the Labour party will simply love a gobby activist opening up such a patently racid can of worms.

So, let us see what makes one James Mills so qualified to make such bold statements:

"James Mills is the former chair of the St Andrews Labour Club, former Parliamentary Researcher to Margaret Curran MSP and now works as the Parliamentary Researcher to John Robertson MP. Previously, he interned at the Guardian, the Fabian Society and Progress."

Ah, of course. And it is not the first time he has rather lamely tried to spin a wholly untenable and villified position into a Labour triumph

"Anyone who has followed the trials and tribulations of the Gurkhas, as I have, knows that this Labour Government has a proud record. It was a Labour government that has stood by the regiment the most the negative press which Labour has been getting on this is frankly a disgrace. The Gurkhas have better pensions under Labour and those who served under this government now have full citizenship after four years' service. One must remember that it is under Labour that the Gurkhas have faired a dam sight better than they did under the Tories and all those Tory Trolls who leave comments on these pages: can you honestly disagree with that?

The real target of anyone who is fearful for the Gurkhas' wellbeing should focus their anger towards the Conservatives who left it to a Labour government to end this absurd dichotomy. "


http://www.labourlist.org/james-mills-labour-list-gurkhas-vote

Give it up: you are only making it worse.
 
#14
Speedy said:
Furthermore, anyone who has anger for the supply of British personnel in the recent Iraq War, only has to look back to the first Gulf War where British forces were so poorly supplied they were first labelled “the borrowers” by our allies.
Actually, in GW1 the govt opened it's wallet and said 'get whatever you need' we 'borrowed' very little of the U.S. apart from the usual cots and the marines parkas. TBH, I had too much kit, and wanted for little.
The term 'Borrowers' was given in the recent Iraq and Afghan conflicts, so it's a blatent lie on the part of the Labour spin machine this one.
And considering the film 'The Borrowers' (there are 2 versions) were released in 92 and 97 it is doubtful that the Americans ever gave us a nickname based on what was until then a generally obscure childrens book.
God! I hate those lying socialist pri**s!
Didnt Kuwait bankroll the Uk for that war?
 
#15
"
Contrast this with the current situation; the UK is currently the second highest spender in the world on defence, "


Were to they get these figures from?


United States $663,700,000,000
France $70,613,746,423
People's Republic of China $70,308,600,000
United Kingdom $65,149,500,000



And that's before the coming cuts.
 
#16
llech said:
Speedy said:
Furthermore, anyone who has anger for the supply of British personnel in the recent Iraq War, only has to look back to the first Gulf War where British forces were so poorly supplied they were first labelled “the borrowers” by our allies.
Actually, in GW1 the govt opened it's wallet and said 'get whatever you need' we 'borrowed' very little of the U.S. apart from the usual cots and the marines parkas. TBH, I had too much kit, and wanted for little.
The term 'Borrowers' was given in the recent Iraq and Afghan conflicts, so it's a blatent lie on the part of the Labour spin machine this one.
And considering the film 'The Borrowers' (there are 2 versions) were released in 92 and 97 it is doubtful that the Americans ever gave us a nickname based on what was until then a generally obscure childrens book.
God! I hate those lying socialist pri**s!
Didnt Kuwait bankroll the Uk for that war?
And the Saudis, but HMG at at he time footed all of the initial costs.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads