Originally Posted by
Finningley Boy
Take it easy pr00ne, you'll set fire to your Horse Hair Wig dear chap. Just because I didn't give a more detailed description of the impact of the defence white paper of 1957, as it affected the Navy and the Army doesn't mean I'm conveniently scrubbing round the point, merely trying to keep my posts short. Indeed, I'm currently writing about that very subject. Mr Corbyn is entirely relevant because he could have become the Prime Minister. Sir Keir Starmer also has some baggage regarding the issue of Foreign and Defence Policy., he opposed military action against Isis. Look Mr, the fairest thing to say is that no matter who you vote for, the Government always get in. I'm certainly not making the case for the Tories on defence, they've certainly not built a better track record overall than Labour Governments. But their party has never had to keep a lid on absolute bone headed radical progressives and Marxists. You'll recall the 1977 paperback "Sense about Defence" by Ian Mikardo MP, it was thrown out by the Labour government of the day, but it demonstrated how close Labour are to being led into government by such people. They've so far been led in opposition by a handful, Michael Foot, and I'm sorry to mention him again, Jeremy Corbyn and for good measure, Neil Kinnock. Now if you really want to get your hackles up, can you remember what proposals for defence were made by George Lansbury, when he was the national Labour party leader, back in 1933-35?
FB
NO he couldn't! He didn't get elected, he lost by a country mile, did you not notice. There was ZERO chance of Corbyn becoming PM, though he could hardly make more of a cock up than this current shower. 1977 "Sense about Defence was a fringe publication taken seriously by no-one, and the lunatic fringe that used to exist in Labour is no worse than the similar idealistic dogma driven lunatics that currently inhabit the Tory Party! 1933-35? Oh for good ness sake get real!
And I don't wear a wig and I am most definitely not what you would call a "Dear Chap!"
Trying to defend the current shambolic defence policy of these lunatics in power right now with specious arguments from 1933 and 1977 just makes you look entirely irrelevant, and a bit silly.