Neither Blair or Brown attend Parliament for Iraq Debate

#41
I'm only surprised by how many people are left speechless at Bliars craven absence. What did you expect? The man (and I use the term loosely) to tip up and take what was coming to him? An apology? A chance to aquaint us with his point of view?

Not fcuking likely. As pointed out previously he is on his resettlement and not going to hinder his chances on retirement from PM.
 
#42
He did find time to make a statement to the House about Jane Goody and Big Brother, so that's OK then.
 
#43
Just sent:
Tony Blair MP
Prime Minister
10 Downing Street,
London,
SW1A 2AA 25 January, 2007

Dear Mr Blair

Your failure to lead the debate on Iraq on 24 January was the action of the most craven coward.

One would have expected that since it was you and your government's decision to send our troops to war on two fronts without the support that was required, you would at least have the decency to debate the issues with our elected representatives.

please find link ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped....jpg/200px-A_single_white_feather_closeup.jpg ) to your white feather, white feather as a token of my contempt. It is time that you accepted responsibility for your own actions - first you should publicly apologise to the troops and their families, and then to the electorate.
received acknowledgement of email - not holding my breath for a cogent reply.
 
#44
Does anyone have a photo of Broon in the desert taken on his recent visit. I would like to start a Broon cowardice email. I saw from the news clip last night that Cameron was present and I heard Ming speak.

BTW if James Gray (Con), wins his reselection vote on 30 Jan I have offered to stand against him. Try and get an ARRSER in parliament!
 
#48
What an utterly useless, spineless, yellow bellied, cowardly cnut. Showing no respect for the office he holds either. Tosser
 
#49
nigegilb said:
BTW if James Gray (Con), wins his reselection vote on 30 Jan I have offered to stand against him. Try and get an ARRSER in parliament!
Why? You might not like his private habits, but he is very pro military.
 
#50
Question

What is more important to the Leader of the Labour Party ?

a) Debating in the house about an illegal war in which British troops are involved, and could at any time be overrun, in Basra.

b) Speaking to the the Tory rabble at the CBI, and cramming for your retirement on the free lunch circuit.

Obviously b)

It gets worse every day.
 
#51
machiavelli said:
Didnt follow the debate but was told Cameron was'nt there either - can anyone confirm ?

If not why not surely the opportunity to reinforce the absence of the other party's leader would score big politico points ?
You are perfectly correct.

While the Prime Minister chose to address the big business Lobby Group - the Confederation of British Industry - the leader of Her Majesty's principal opposition party, David Cameron, chose to fly off to the holiday resort of Davos in Switzerland.

Now you know why we have a single-ideology totalitarian state when the leaders of both branches of the Conservalabourtive party display an equality of contempt for Parliament. One reason why the reality of this relationship between the two leaders was described in the words of George Galloway as: "two cheeks of the same arrse"

The only other main Party leader present for the debate was Sir Menzies Campbell whose party opposed, in Parliament, the illegal war. in the first place.

Regards and best wishes
Iolis
 
#52
The fact that both the main leaders were away at business meetings was very telling. No matter which party you lead your first function is to both placate and facilitate the corporate world that has been coming into being for the past 100 years.

It would not be too mad to describe the U.S. & British forces as the currently operating as the armed wing of the corporate oil industry.
In the article below the often excellent Jane Smiley says that corporations beholden only to themselves and their shareholders act in a manner often forbidden to the private individual.

She says those who work for them act in a way at work that would be illegal were they to act in such a way in their private lives.

So obviously a meeting with the board for both leaders would take precedent over a meeting in the house to deal with staff matters.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/is-there-something-wrong-_b_39395.html
 
#53
Its worse than you think, according to the Indy during the first part of the debate he was actually in the House of Commons, in an office having sandwiches with advisors, discussing gay adoption with Chris Bryant MP etc etc. All this time he was, apparently, just metres from the chamber. But he didn't think it was worth his time to attend. Disgusting.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2183857.ece
 
#54
Hang on a mo - Cameron was there: unless the Guardian and Times reporters (amongst others) were making things up (or Cameron has a convincing double):

Tony Blair has rejected a call for an October pull-out of UK troops from Iraq - but ducked discussing the issue with MPs at a Commons debate on the conflict.

In a deliberate breach of parliamentary etiquette, the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties appeared in the chamber - despite Mr Blair's decision to attend a CBI conference of business leaders in London instead.
Grauniad story and Times story. Also see Torygraph report

Parliamentary etiquette (as the story suggests) holds that if the PM isn't there, the leader of the opposition doesn't turn up either. This is why when Prescott entertains the masses at PMQs he is faced by someone else - usually William Hague.

Since Margaret Caravan was leading for the government, Hague was - according to etiquette - the one to respond for the opposition, which he did.

Ming Campbell spoke, but IIRC, Paddy Ashdown often spoke in foreign affairs debates as the Lib Dem lead as a function of the fact that the Lib Dems aren't the official opposition, so the etiquette doesn't apply in quite the same way (AIUI). Cameron may have headed off to Davos (for the World Economic Forum), but he was at the debate.
 
#55
Archimedes said:
Hang on a mo - Cameron was there: unless the Guardian and Times reporters (amongst others) were making things up (or Cameron has a convincing double):

Tony Blair has rejected a call for an October pull-out of UK troops from Iraq - but ducked discussing the issue with MPs at a Commons debate on the conflict.

In a deliberate breach of parliamentary etiquette, the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties appeared in the chamber - despite Mr Blair's decision to attend a CBI conference of business leaders in London instead.
Grauniad story and Times story. Also see Torygraph report

Parliamentary etiquette (as the story suggests) holds that if the PM isn't there, the leader of the opposition doesn't turn up either. This is why when Prescott entertains the masses at PMQs he is faced by someone else - usually William Hague.

Since Margaret Caravan was leading for the government, Hague was - according to etiquette - the one to respond for the opposition, which he did.

Ming Campbell spoke, but IIRC, Paddy Ashdown often spoke in foreign affairs debates as the Lib Dem lead as a function of the fact that the Lib Dems aren't the official opposition, so the etiquette doesn't apply in quite the same way (AIUI). Cameron may have headed off to Davos (for the World Economic Forum), but he was at the debate.
True, but I think it would have been a good idea if he had spoken as it would have further highlighted Bliar's absence and shown the importance of the debate.
 
#56
Gordon Brown, moral coward and c**p Chancellor?

As our debts pile up, it's too late for Brown to get out in time

By Jeff Randall
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 26/01/2007

A culture of bullying and harassment is driving staff out of Gordon Brown's Treasury, according to a report by the aptly named consultancy, Talent Drain. As disaffected civil servants emerge from the Chancellor's dungeons, blinking in the Whitehall light, they'll discover an unfortunate truth. For millions of hard-working people, it's just as bad out here as it is inside Gordon's grotto.

Of those quitting the Treasury, nearly one third cited "low morale". Hey, welcome to Brown's world. Come walk a mile in our shoes. The Chancellor has been bullying and harassing decent taxpayers for 10 years. While you Treasury chaps have been helping Mr Brown churn out new rules, regulations, red tape, benefits, handouts and subsidies, with Stakhanovite efficiency, the rest of us have been toiling to make sense of it all and pay for his budgetary incontinence.

The survey reveals that two thirds of Treasury staff quit within two years of joining. Millions of other over-burdened souls would dearly love to leave behind the Clunking Fist so easily.


In his early days at Number 11, Mr Brown rightly observed that there are two types of chancellor: "Those who fail and those who get out in time." He invited us to infer that he'd know when to go. Many of us thought that he'd crack it. We were wrong. As the longest-serving chancellor of the modern era, Mr Brown has left it too late — far too late — to escape the flames of public opprobrium. Incendiary facts are now burning through his record. He's not going to get out in time. And neither are we.

Mr Brown's style is to control all levers of power. This means micro-managing every detail. It would be no surprise to learn that he chose the colour of the Treasury's lavatory paper. Unfortunately for Mr Brown, the one thing he can't control is the timing of his ascent to Number 10. That's in the gift of the second-hand car dealer, next door to whom he has been living since 1997. By the time Tony Blair finally allows the Chancellor to become Prime Minister, Mr Brown will already be the Prime Suspect. His alleged crime? Trading under false pretences as a successful keeper of the country's coffers.

What the Chancellor has done to our economy is mirrored by the behaviour of many Britons who have been encouraged to live well beyond their means. Debt — mountains of it — has underpinned Mr Brown's growth story. Any fool can over-borrow and live, briefly, a fantasy existence. Indeed, in today's consume-now, pay-later culture, many fools do. That includes Mr Brown. Debt is the new junk food. We know that an overdose is bad for us, but we're lovin' it.

Dreamers acquire swanky houses, drive luxury cars and take exotic holidays — all on credit. They have it large. For a while these big spenders impress others, and perhaps themselves, that they're living like millionaires. Chancellors, too, are seduced by the feel-good factor. The wine flows, the music plays and the dancing goes on for ever. Except that it doesn't. Last year, more than 100,000 Britons became insolvent. Rising interest rates, rising unemployment, rising taxes and rising fuel bills shattered the illusion. Bailiffs gatecrashed the party. At least as many people, probably more, will go bust this year.

Brown's Britain is in a similar position. He is borrowing upwards of £35 billion a year to keep the show on the road. He has blown our savings on unreformed public services. Last year, he spent £169 billion on health and education alone. Yet hospitals are closing and nurses are being sacked. In our schools, once you strip out the fiddled examination results, it's clear that standards of literacy and numeracy remain shamefully low.

Mr Brown's growth "miracle" — 38 consecutive quarters of expansion — is nothing of the sort. It has been manufactured by a public spending binge that will inevitably end in tears, because the Chancellor is running out of money.

He boasts about soaring employment, but the increase in jobs is largely accounted for by a ballooning state payroll. From 1991 to 1998, public-sector employment fell every year, with an overall reduction of 816,000. Since Mr Brown decided to create a client class of state-funded workers (with mink-lined pensions), public-sector employment has grown like a Russian vine. By June 2005, there were 680,000 more public-sector jobs than before Labour was elected. This helps explain Britain's poor productivity performance: all those diversity officers (the BBC's is paid about £90,000 a year) make a lot of noise, but not much else.

The late, great Lord Weinstock told me that when he saw a company's profits rising, but cash balances falling, he had learnt "to become suspicious". We should be equally sceptical about an economy that, after 10 years of apparent boom, is mired in personal and public debt.

If we can't reduce borrowings when, allegedly, we've never had it so good, what chance of balancing the books when bad times arrive? If this is prosperity, where has all the money gone? Answer: funding low-productivity activity. So desperate is Mr Brown to hoover up private assets to pay for public excess that he raids our pension funds for more than £5 billion a year. At the same time, his Byzantine benefits system is over-paying claimants by about £1 billion a year. It's his very own version of Gresham's Law: bad money drives out good.

In terms of reputation, Mr Brown will soon join the growing list of bankrupts — Mr Blair, the empty suit, will see to that. The Prime Minister has, in effect, what the City calls "a put option" on his Chancellor. He knows that, the longer he hangs on, the worse the British economy becomes. Mr Blair will hand over the keys at the point of maximum pain for Mr Brown. Professor David Smith of Derby University, a former City economist, says that Mr Brown will face "the worst structural fiscal deficit of any incoming prime minister since 1979 or possibly 1974, but has only himself to blame".

Amidst this financial carnage, what are the Conservatives doing? Not a lot. They're too busy wittering on about stability, as if promising to maintain Labour's fiscal imbalances is somehow evidence of a responsible future government.

Very rarely, perhaps once in a decade, an opposition party is presented with an open goal of such magnitude that it would be politically negligent not to score. That moment has arrived. Mr Brown's plundering of our private pensions has no worthwhile support beyond the Treasury. Not in the North or South, among Left or Right, rich or poor. Nobody in their right mind thinks it's a good idea to wreck a retirement system that was once the envy of less fortunate nations.

So, George Osborne, shadow chancellor, the goal is wide open. Even a one-legged man in a ballet shoe could smash the ball in the net. Why don't you promise that, given the chance, the Tories would stop the robbing of our pensioners?
 
#59
nigegilb said:
do edit your telegraph post nigeglib, its rather untidy
 
#60
Interesting reading, though!
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads