Bob-a-jobsworth talks about Incapability Brown...

[BEagle]

From The Grauniad:

Gordon Brown is not just difficult to work with, but "impossible", according to Bob Ainsworth, the former defence secretary.

Ainsworth, who helped lead Britain's military commitment in Afghanistan, said he found it difficult to get one-to-one meetings with the prime minister and his views on defence policy were ignored.

More at Bob Ainsworth: Gordon Brown 'impossible' to work with | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jun/16/bob-ainsworth-criticises-gordon-brown)

[Lockstock]

...and his views on defence policy were ignored.

Phew, thank :mad: for that.

Maybe we should give Brown more credit than we thought.

[Trumpet_trousers]

Ainsworth, who 'elped lead Britain's military commitment in Afghanistan, said 'e found it difficult to get one-to-one meetings with the prime minister and 'is views on defence policy were ignored.

Come on Beags, get it right!

[knowitall]

He does make one good point mind

"We want to be an important country, but we don't want to pay for defence,"

"The big dilemma is, and this annoys me more than anything that people will look at the television and say something must be done but they won't pay for the means to do it."

[Pontius Navigator]

"We want to be an important country, but we don't want to pay for defence," s to do it."

The premise seems to be that important countries should pay for defence. Is this true?

Without doubt USA is and does. Who else is both important and pays for defence? Russia, China, France (?), Spain (?), Italy (?)?

Which countries are important and don't pay? Iceland :)?

Which countries do pay for defence and are not important?

The key question is what makes a country important. Israel and Iran are both important for obvious reasons. Afghanistan is important but for the wrong reasons. Syria is important because of where it is. Saudia Arabia is important becasue of its wealth and spending power.

Paying for defence is only one way of trying to be important.

[Fortyodd2]

"Ainsworth, who helped lead Britain's military commitment in Afghanistan"

That has to be one of the biggest lies ever seen on this forum!!!!!!!

[cazatou]

The mere fact that Gordon Brown employed Mr Ainsworth as SofS for Defence shows exactly how much he, as Prime Minister, valued the Armed Forces. Mr Brown is, after all, on record as stating "A Pound spent on Defence is a Pound wasted."

Good Riddance to the pair of them.

[Jackonicko]

This is an accusation I've seen many times, yet never with any proper attribution.

If Gordon Brown said: "A Pound spent on Defence is a Pound wasted."

When did he say it?

[minigundiplomat]

Every day 1997 - 2010, especially 2007 - 2010.







I can't back that up Jacko!

[Tallsar]

One fact for sure is that Bob Ainsworth was (plus or minus 1) No25 within a UK Cabinet of 27, whereas Dr Fox I believe is No5 in precedence in the present Cabinet - a position more usual in the history of UK cabinets. That I think speaks volumes of Brown's attitude to defence despite us engaged in warfare which he constantly claimed was essential for the UK's security and national interest - a real non sequitor - delinquent leadership is a phrase I would use.

[Jackonicko]

I'm sure the pr1ck thought it, I just doubt that he was stupid enough to say it out loud.

Nor articulate or honest enough to have said it so plainly.

[BEagle]

Jackonicko, your PM storage is full, so I cannot send you a PM. Thus I will have to post here instead:

Please would you return the irreplaceable 35mm slides I loaned you for an article some years ago without further delay. Thanks.

[Jackonicko]

Beags,

Will chase AFM for them.

J

[beerdrinker]

Jack,
I seem to remember raising the question of GB's quote some time ago. One of the contributors to the thread with better memory than me came up with the time and context of the quote.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

So, unable to access GB and knowing the MoD was on a massive loser, Bob-a-job naturally did what John Hutton did and resigned. And of course 2 SecDef's in a row resigning would probably have altered Defence policy for the better.
Shame on you Ainsworth!

Bob is a:
1) Spineless b#stard!
2) Clueless b#stard!
3) Utterly self-centred b#stard!
4) All of the above

Is Bob actually wishing us to think that he EXPECTED easy, or indeed any, access to GB on defence matters? Why on Earth did he think JH resigned in the first place?
"I could not fight, I dared not rob (n.b. expenses apparently doesn't count!), therefore I lied to please..." Myself!

Can I give Bob a personal briefing on extraordinary rendition procedures please? I promise lots of practical demonstrations!
This is me to him: :E
This is him to me: :ooh:

[Squirrel 41]

Fox3, indeed.

I understand that Comrade Bob got the job when Hutton resigned as he told El Gordo that "he really wanted it". :*

Which would explain why I wasn't picked to succeed Kevin Pietersen as England Captain. Hence, when Straussy calls it a day, I'll give Lord's a call and tell them that I "really want the job" - should do the trick nicely! :ugh:

If this is what he really thought, he should've resigned. Would this qualify as LMF?

S41

[Thelma Viaduct]

All politicians are ****, otherwise they would have a proper job.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Squirrel41,
yup, LMF
But it's a lot worse than that. Question why did Bob not get the job ahead of JH? Answer: JH was better suited. Bob must have asked himself this question, and therefore concluded that he was only being offered the job after JH resigned because he would do what JH wouldn't. And what was required? That he would shut up with awkward questions, back GB without question, and just be happy with the Title (and pay/pension etc) of SecDef without doing the job he was supposed to do in Cabinet Government.
Hence my 4 options. Personally I go for "all of the above"

Hopefully not all politicians are useless, otherwise things will never get better. I have dealt with 4 well-meaning and useful MPs in my moves around UK, but up till now none of them have had real power. Hague at least has a chance now.

As a Major in the Paras said to me 8 years ago, "We are going to have to lose a war before things will change, and we're going to lose TWO!"

[Pontius Navigator]

concluded that he was only being offered the job . . . That he would shut up with awkward questions, back GB without question, and just be happy with the Title (and pay/pension etc) of

Chancellor.

I thought GB thought he could control as a Yes Man and not cede control. He was wrong but it was too late to make any difference to GB plc.

[Thelma Viaduct]

All politicians are useless and is the reason why you get less for your taxes each year.

The UK is £890 billion in debt, competence doesn't get you to that point.

The whole bank thing is a white wash, the money drain has been going on for years.

Public assets have been sold, yet taxes still rise disproportially to salary. It is only now becoming a 'problem' because they've pretty much sold everything they can without themselves becoming managers with nothing left to manage.

They're useless, a sweet shop owner could do a much job on his tod.

Things won't get better, it's gonna get much much worse.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Sadly Pious, you may be right.
Anyway, when the going gets tough, the tough get going. I've emigrated to Canada. I can highly recommend the place.
I applied for emigration at the end of 2006. Canada has had no banks go bust and is expanding its economy faster than any other G8 country.
Was the UK bank crash a "surprise" then? Er..., no.