View Full Version : Bottom Feeder or Good Guy
popeye107
31st Dec 2021, 22:40
Any minute now expect the whole hierarchy to erupt into tears. Some of the loved ones that actually add nothing, but bottom feed without pride, will be rewarded, whilst at the same time those that deserve recognition and more will not stand out against them.
it’s a divisive time, when the very worst stand out as frauds whilst the very best stand as equals to those absolute oxygen thieves. Let’s see, but if you believe the system is sound, you are part of the problem that we live with.
LateArmLive
31st Dec 2021, 22:53
...must be NY Honours time!
Countdown begins
31st Dec 2021, 23:07
I can remember an award given to a WO from Kinloss, 1990, for valuable service in the air prior to GW1. He hadn’t flown, and he knew Fk All about the equipment. So, any real warrior in the air is no better than that, a false system of rewarding ‘our pals’. Shame, as if you police things they hold value.
NutLoose
31st Dec 2021, 23:57
Any minute now expect the whole hierarchy to erupt into tears. Some of the loved ones that actually add nothing, but bottom feed without pride, will be rewarded, whilst at the same time those that deserve recognition and more will not stand out against them.
it’s a divisive time, when the very worst stand out as frauds whilst the very best stand as equals to those absolute oxygen thieves. Let’s see, but if you believe the system is sound, you are part of the problem that we live with.
totally and utterly agree.
popeye107
1st Jan 2022, 00:11
To be recognised along with Tony Blair, hero of multiple military needless deaths (RMP no ammunition) is about the worst taint there is.
some brave and worthwhile colleagues are going to lose their shine over this. Not the butt loving HQ heroes that are still 6 years away from a Weapon Handling Test, ‘The Award Parasites’.
Lima Juliet
1st Jan 2022, 00:40
Haha,
let’s see the chiselled from the airlift, and the offices that worked very very hard. Branch and Trade must be due a financial award for their sterling work!
Don’t forget that things like the Op PITTING airlift and other operational excellence will be picked up in the Operational Honours in March/October of each year. These things take time too, so I doubt PITTING will make March (it might, just!) and so I’m expecting to see some RAF names on that list in Oct 22.
Commendations are the ones that are odd to me - having had a 2-star’s and 3-stars’ in the past. Other nations issue a little pin badge to wear on your uniform (a bit like McDonalds stars!), to recognise those that have been commended. Even our RAAF, RCAF and RNZAF cousins in similar uniforms do that and it means a bit more than a certificate that sits in a drawer at home, or even worse the ‘I love me’ wall in the downstairs lavvy! You also mention financial reward - sometimes you are better off getting a Stn Cdr’s Commendation as that normally comes with a £20-£50 gift token compared to nothing with a 2-star, 3-star or 4-star Commendation!!!
If I were Chief for the day, I would get the Commendation System sorted and make sure that we recognise and say ‘thank you’ to those that don’t get a major award. I would also push for a change back to the AFC given for meritorious service rather than just ‘exemplary gallantry whilst flying in peacetime’ - that retrospective step was made in 1993 that should be reversed.
Anyway, you are right, there are some good names to be seen on the list that I am pleased to see - but then there are some absolute shockers too!!!
Asturias56
1st Jan 2022, 09:12
"I'm not asking for much , just something simple - a small badge - perhaps the words HE GAVE THAT OTHERS MIGHT LIVE"
The Blood Donor
Popeye - Tony Blair's award is a personal one from the Queen herself, someone who has seen more PMs than she could shake a stick at. What does that tell you?
Popeye - Tony Blair's award is a personal one from the Queen herself, someone who has seen more PMs than she could shake a stick at. What does that tell you?
It tells me that dementia is setting in.
teeteringhead
2nd Jan 2022, 08:27
Bliar’s KG is par for the course for ex-PMs since they stopped giving them Earldoms. I think HM shows her opinion with some subtlety; Call-Me-Tony had to wait 14 years for his, Heath I think was longer than that. Wilson however - anecdotally HM’s favourite - got his immediately on retirement.
And it opens the door - God help us - for subsequent PMs, as they have to get the awards in order of serving I think. So stand by for Broon, Cameron, May and (I’ll bet that’ll be a long wait) even BoJo.
But, as crab@ rightly says, it’s in the personal gift of the sovereign, so maybe Charles III (or possibly George VII if you believe the rumours) will change the plan…..
[Edited to add:]
Just looked up Grocer Heath - he waited 18 years!
dctyke
2nd Jan 2022, 08:44
I suppose Corbin will get the ‘Order of Lenin’.
langleybaston
2nd Jan 2022, 18:09
The honours system stinks. I only ever put one man up [MBE]. Approved all the way up by Met. Office and RAF. Scuppered by rationing because Falklands intervened.
Always refused to touch the system thereafter. Much easier to get the good'uns rapid promotion, and it puts bread on the table.
On a lighter note [hopefully] I read that:
"Jason and Laura Kenny become knight and dame in sport’s New Year honours (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/dec/31/jason-and-laura-kenny-become-knight-and-dame-in-sports-new-year-honours)"
YES BUT.
Laura is married to a sir, so becomes Lady.
If I met her, and grovelled suitably, how should I address her?
And is the double "ladyship" unique, or unusual?
Union Jack
2nd Jan 2022, 18:26
The honours system stinks. I only ever put one man up [MBE]. Approved all the way up by Met. Office and RAF. Scuppered by rationing because Falklands intervened.
Always refused to touch the system thereafter. Much easier to get the good'uns rapid promotion, and it puts bread on the table.
On a lighter note [hopefully] I read that:
"Jason and Laura Kenny become knight and dame in sport’s New Year honours (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/dec/31/jason-and-laura-kenny-become-knight-and-dame-in-sports-new-year-honours)"
YES BUT.
Laura is married to a sir, so becomes Lady.
If I met her, and grovelled suitably, how should I address her?
And is the double "ladyship" unique, or unusual?
Bearing in mind that knights' wives were originally known as "Dames", coupled with the fact that a present day knight's wife's first name does not form part of her title, I'm going to guess that "Dame Laura" will be her preferred form of address.
Turning to LB's second point, there are many peers' wives who are or were Dames, such as the two Ladies-in-Waiting to HM The Queen who have sadly died lately, and I suspect that there are several baronets or knights whose wives hold or held damehoods. One notable example of the latter. was of course Dame Pattie Menzies, wife of Sir Robert Menzies KT, the former Prime Minister of Australia.
Jack
farefield
2nd Jan 2022, 19:44
Best news from the honours list, Jason and Laura Kenny being ennobled. Sickened to hear about Bliar.
langleybaston
2nd Jan 2022, 21:59
Ref B Liar:
my wife said "he must know something we don't know"
Yes. He knew he was lying.
Yes. He knew he was lying. No different to Boris then? Only TB didn't prorogue Parliament or lie to HMTQ and the democratic vote to join the coalition and invade Iraq was by a huge margin - far bigger than Brexit.
Shock Horror - politician doesn't tell the truth.........
The Nip
3rd Jan 2022, 12:24
No different to Boris then? Only TB didn't prorogue Parliament or lie to HMTQ and the democratic vote to join the coalition and invade Iraq was by a huge margin - far bigger than Brexit.
Shock Horror - politician doesn't tell the truth.........
412 MPs voted for That HM Government should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. ( out of 659) 18 March 2003.
544 MPs voted for the Referendum Act 2015 out of 650.
498 MPs voted for A50 Feb 2017 out of 650 MPs.
Haraka
3rd Jan 2022, 12:49
"412 MPs voted for That HM Government should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. ( out of 659) 18 March 2003"
And how was Parliament led in to supporting that decision ?
"The ex-Prime Minister has long faced criticism for sending troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, a decision which culminated in a devastating report by Sir John Chilcot in 2016 which found he overplayed evidence about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. " (DM)
He was following the USA - not saying he was right to do that but I suspect he was under a lot of pressure to conform. economic and political.
Who made the strong case in the US that started the move to invade? ISTR it was Colin Powell.
Nip - a very different position to vote against the 'will of the people' no wonder they all jumped on board with Boris.
The Nip
3rd Jan 2022, 14:28
He was following the USA - not saying he was right to do that but I suspect he was under a lot of pressure to conform. economic and political.
Who made the strong case in the US that started the move to invade? ISTR it was Colin Powell.
Nip - a very different position to vote against the 'will of the people' no wonder they all jumped on board with Boris.
Maybe I misunderstood your point. But the votes, by MPs, for Iraq action was a smaller number than those MPs who voted for the two major Brexit Acts.
Nip, my point was that when ministers voted for Iraq action, it was a free vote and public opinion hadn't been canvassed by referendum so they could vote the way they wanted.
For the Brexit votes, many MPs might not have voted the way they did but had to honour the 'will of the people' in their constituencies.
staircase
4th Jan 2022, 09:24
Sometimes the sites on this forum get me interested enough to comment and this thread is one of them.
The comments above seem to me to reflect the growing sense that politics has become tribal. There have been a number of interesting discussions on radio and in the newspapers expressing this view. It seems that people now believe that their side is the right side, and that the ‘others’ are totally wrong in their opinions. Compromise and give and take are now very dirty words, a situation I would suggest that has been brought about by ‘social media’.
I hold no candle for Tony Blair. He had his good points and his bad, and I think that most of us would fall into that category. However lets go back to before social media, to 1979 to 1990; the Thatcher years.
If some pretty silly decisions had not been made by the MoD, Treasury, and the Foreign Office, I think that it is unlikely the Falklands War would have happened.
In addition some interesting decisions made on exchange rates, and the way to spend the tax revenues from North Sea Oil resulted in the devastation of our industrial base. Sure union power needed to be curtailed, but something should also have been done about the appalling quality of management at the same time.
Now the reason that I mention all this, is that if I were to ask practically any of my friends and relatives in the north if Maggie should have got an honour after leaving office, then I have no doubt what the answer would have been. If there had been a petition available to ask if she should have got an honour on leaving office then I would suggest that there would have been a dam sight more that a million signatures on it, even if most of them would have been from people living north of Milton Keynes.
What I am trying to say, is live and let live. Have a bit of ‘give and take’ for the other side, and a bit less of ‘disgusted from Tunbridge Wells’.
My opinion on the honours system. Most of it should be scrapped. Buying Knighthoods and a seat in the House of Lords, getting Knighthoods as part of the job spec., stinks. By all means lets give out gongs for bravery but as for the rest.......
teeteringhead
4th Jan 2022, 10:42
Leaving aside the validity of the Honours system as a whole, one oddity/anomaly has always struck me.
The wife of Sir Joe Bloggs becomes Lady Bloggs, while the husband of Dame Joanna Bloggs remains Mr Bloggs. And of course these days one must also consider the husband of Sir Joe or the wife of Dame Joanna.
What would suitable “titles by association” be, or should we just settle for Sir Joe and Mrs Bloggs - which sounds a bit strange……..
Staircase - absolutely right and I was just trying to bring a little balance to the 'We hate Bliar' brigade.
You could also have mentioned the parlous state of MoD MQs that the next Tory PM, John Major, brought upon us 1996, selling them off to Annington Homes.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/526x899/labour_2d21ed2c81c52751706991cf17a00b08d717ca72.jpg
Oh yes TB was such a bad PM.............just keep a sense of balance
ExAscoteer2
4th Jan 2022, 18:28
I wouldn't piss on Blair if he was on fire.
That w. anchor got good friends of mine dead.
staircase
4th Jan 2022, 19:59
O.K. the I will put another spin on it.
The reasons we went to war were, to say the least open to debate. However, it was not just some on this side of the Atlantic that bought into it. I remember a UN session by a very famous General.
What I would say to ExAscoteer is that anyone who joined any of the three services joins, if not to go to war, then they know that there is a reasonable chance that they may have to go to war.
Was anyone in the military therefore not pleased (if apprehensive) to go and have their training and their 'mettle' tested? We all knew the implications of military service when we took the oath, and knew the risks, even if it was flying your aeroplane into a hill training for war. 85 RAF aircrew died during the brief period of peace (Northern Ireland not counting) that I served.
Sure, Toni B declared war, but does anyone think that the senior ranks of the MoD at the time were really against it?
War is an extension (failure?) of politics. You can blame politicians for going to war, but subsequent deaths in battle can't just be laid at their door. You might as well blame Bae Systems for providing the weapons to make it possible, or the Generals to say what is proposed is achievable, or the foot soldiers for wanting to have the 'chance to do the job we trained for ' offered.
To blame a politician for the deaths of your friends is perhaps unfair.
As for a knight hood; which will come Boris's way as a result of this breaking of the presumed honours for ex PMs log jam. Try this for size:
What would the Daily Mail/ Telegraph headline have been, if a 57 year old twice divorced lady of Caribbean heritage, with unknown children, who had been sacked a couple of times from jobs for lying, had move her toyboy into Downing Street as our PM?
Mods - feel free to delete the last para!
Mods - feel free to delete the last para! I think it should stand as should the rest of your post.
I was, for many years, a typical Service voter - Tory every time as they were the ones who looked after the military, right?
In the past 10 years, I have come to see the Conservatives for what they really are, selfish, arrogant and self-serving, happy to sell off the family silver to get votes. I wouldn't have dreamed of voting for Corbyn, the looney left still don't understand that 100-year old politics don't work nowadays and the the great Communist experiment failed pathetically.
TB did take us to war and, as we approach to 40th anniversary of the Falkland conflict- so did Maggie, also in a war that didn't need fighting and also at the cost of hundreds of British and Argentine servicemen.
It's all about balance and those who don't have any will doubtless take us into the next conflict.
NutLoose
5th Jan 2022, 11:15
From the Independent
Tony Blair’s ex-defence chief ‘told to burn memo saying Iraq invasion could be illegal’
Tony Blair’s former defence secretary Geoff Hoon has claimed he was told by Downing Street to “burn” a memo that suggested the invasion of Iraq could be illegal.
The ex-Labour minister said his own adviser was told “in no uncertain terms” to get rid of a memo written by former attorney general Lord Goldsmith.
Details of Mr Hoon’s claims, which appear in his recently-published memoir See How They Run, comes as the former prime minister faces a campaign to block his knighthood.
More than 680,000 people have signed a petition to rescind the gong, and a YouGov poll indicated that 63 per cent of Britons are against the move to turn Mr Blair into Sir Tony.
Mr Hoon claimed the order to burn the legal memo came from Jonathan Powell, Sir Tony’s then-chief of staff at No 10, according to details published in the Daily Mail. Mr Powell denies the allegation.
The former Labour minister said he was sent a copy of Lord Goldsmith’s memo “under conditions of considerable secrecy” and told he should “not discuss its contents with anyone else”.
He wrote: “I read the opinion several times; it was not an easy read. Eventually I came to the view that the attorney general had decided that invading Iraq would be lawful if the Prime Minister believed that it was in the UK’s national interest to do so. It was not exactly the ringing endorsement that the Chief of the Defence Staff was looking for, and in any event, I was not strictly allowed to show it to him or even discuss it with him.”
Mr Hoon added: “Moreover, when my Principal Private Secretary, Peter Watkins, called Jonathan Powell in Downing St and asked what he should now do with the document, he was told in no uncertain terms that he should ‘burn it’.”
The former defence secretary said he and principal private secretary decided the memo should be locked in a safe at the Ministry of Defence rather than destroy it.
Sir Tony’s office described the allegation that the memo was ordered to be burned as “nonsense” when it first emerged in 2015.
Mr Powell denied telling Mr Hoon to burn the memo. He told the Daily Mail that Mr Hoon had been sent copies of a separate “minute” on the legality of the invasion months earlier. He had asked Mr Hoon, at the request of Lord Goldsmith, to “destroy the minute – not burn it – and the attorney general’s advice came later”.
Human rights lawyer and academic Philippe Sands said Mr Hoon’s claims offered “further confirmation of what has long been known – ministers, parliament and the public were misled by Mr Blair into supporting a war that was seen by many as unlawful and a crime”.
He added: “In modern Britain, it seems, such a manifest act of wrongdoing does not preclude the offering of a high-level gong.”
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer came out in support of Sir Tony’s knighthood on Tuesday, saying: “I think he deserves the honour.”
Questioned about the strength of feeling about the Blair government’s invasion of Iraq, Sir Keir said: “I understand there are strong views on the Iraq war, there were back at the time and there still are.”
He added: “But that does not detract from the fact that Tony Blair was a very successful prime minister of this country and made a huge difference to the lives of millions of people in this country.”
The Independent has contacted the office of Tony Blair and the office of Jonathan Powell for comment.
I think it should stand as should the rest of your post.
In the past 10 years, I have come to see the Conservatives for what they really are, selfish, arrogant and self-serving, happy to sell off the family silver to get votes. I wouldn't have dreamed of voting for Corbyn, the looney left still don't understand that 100-year old politics don't work nowadays and the the great Communist experiment failed pathetically.
Unlike the Labour the Labour Party who sold the gold to get their votes :=
Not much to chose between any of the major parties :ugh:and I certainly do not have time for the Tories any more
staircase
5th Jan 2022, 13:04
Yes I did see that reported comment from Hoon this morning, and it just reinforced my opinion, once endorsed by a departing BBC political correspondent, who thought that just to get selected as an MP, never mind elected, one had to be a pretty duplicitous sort of character.
I mentioned earlier that I hold no great esteem for T Blair and I post only to try and demonstrate balance. As a counter to the reports of burning the document perhaps I could offer this. When Boris prorogued Parliament, the Law Lords found it illegal with a unanimous vote. It was reported in the law reports that the reason for their decision was that the government could find no one, either politician or Civil Servant, willing to sign their statement to the Law Lords. It was suggested that the reason no one would sign was that they all knew it was false and that they may lay themselves open to a charge of perjury. The Law Lords therefore found against the government. The press responded with the ‘Enemies of the People’ headlines.
Anyone got a bucket of tar? We could all use the same brush on them.
As for who to vote for? There is a feeling that we are going into a situation where democracy is broken. If you don't see your MP and his government representing your opinion, yet you get it anyway with a vote of 33% on a turnout of less than 70% then next time why bother to vote?
You will note that the % voting at each election goes down.
Another gem you may like to ponder. Most floating voters are it seems the ladies. If they had not been given the vote, then it is estimated by a well know Polling organisation that we would have had Labour governments since 1945. I think the Tories are as bad as crab suggests but Dear oh Dear .....the left since 1945!
Lastly to much thread creep do you think?
Cornish Jack
5th Jan 2022, 14:07
The thread responses just serve to emphasise the (slightly belated) assessment by the OP.
The 'tribal' element of UK politics has been the basis for the voters as long as I can remember. For the politicians, it has become more so with the advent of the 'professional' PPE graduate/ SPAD cohorts replacing those who entered politics from working experience, especially ex -Service. Hilda's uncontested baronetcy was balanced by the refusal by Oxford to award an Honorary Degree. Hilda and Bliar both manage to attract and repel with 'extra strength' - the Tom Bower version of Bliar's stewardship (Broken Vows) puts even the Buffoon's unceasing idiocy into near perspective !
Auntie Betty's personal endorsement, I find to be very strange, since current political influence would run against it :confused: The 'Westminster Mafia' will, no doubt, ignore the present outbreak of anger - after all, one wouldn't want to set a precedent of that sort, would one ? :mad:
NutLoose
5th Jan 2022, 14:57
Auntie Betty's personal endorsement, I find to be very strange, since current political influence would run against it https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif The 'Westminster Mafia' will, no doubt, ignore the present outbreak of anger - after all, one wouldn't want to set a precedent of that sort, would one ? https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gif
One does wonder if Philip was still with us would it have got through.
minigundiplomat
5th Jan 2022, 16:26
Auntie Betty's personal endorsement, I find to be verystrange, since current political influence would run against it https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif The 'Westminster Mafia' will, no doubt, ignore the present outbreak of anger - after all, one wouldn't want to set a precedent of that sort, would one ? https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gif
a useful distraction from the non-sweating paedo (alleged) I suspect
langleybaston
5th Jan 2022, 16:42
QUOTE: TB did take us to war and, as we approach to 40th anniversary of the Falkland conflict- so did Maggie, also in a war that didn't need fighting and also at the cost of hundreds of British and Argentine servicemen.
That is to equate apples and pears. Surely the Falklands was a "just war"? And even if not, surely if the "will of the people" means anything, the people were very very dubious about the one, but not the other.
That is to equate apples and pears. Surely the Falklands was a "just war"? And even if not, surely if the "will of the people" means anything, the people were very very dubious about the one, but not the other. The Sun readers were very happy to support the Falklands war thanks to the headlines - media manipulates public opinion, we all know that. Had there been a referendum on it, how many would have gone for it?
How was the Falklands a 'just war'? The history of the Islands has been disputed since the 1600's and neither country has an overwhelming legal claim to it.
I've been enough times, walked the ground and flown the areas - frankly never worth fighting and dying for.
It was a weakness of two Govts, each looking to bolster flagging support in their own countries - hardly a 'Just war'.
pulse1
5th Jan 2022, 18:01
I am not qualified to judge Bliar on the reasons for going to war with Iraq. Subsequent events in Iraq have demonstrated clearly that there was one outstanding reason not to go to war - the absence of any realistic plan for what to do following a certain victory. The resultant death toll on both sides since the war ended is horrendous.
staircase
5th Jan 2022, 20:25
Ah, there we have the Iraq problem in a nut shell. No plan afterwards, and no appreciation of the local politics reference Sunni and Shia. Of the obvious opportunities that Iran would take to open up a ‘road’ to Syria and then to Lebanon.
To disband the Iraqi army and send a shed load of trained and angry soldiers home with their weapons to unemployment and loss of face. A desperate failure of politics and intelligence, or a surfeit of arrogance?
Throw in a mentality that thought it was cheaper to sub contract security to the likes of Blackwater and you get a recipe for the disaster that followed. I remember one critique of what happened in Iraq after the war. One pundit actually said that putting a relatively junior 3STAR in charge was not a good idea.
As (ex)military blokes think on those words – a JUNIOR 3 star!
This gents, will be my last posting on this thread.
golder
5th Jan 2022, 21:02
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/526x899/labour_2d21ed2c81c52751706991cf17a00b08d717ca72.jpg
Oh yes TB was such a bad PM.............just keep a sense of balance
Does it stop Blair, Howard and Bush, from being war criminals though?
Clunk60
5th Jan 2022, 21:31
Mr Staircase
What a succinct summary. I was involved one way or other from 1990 to 2020 in all the wars against terrorism/ ideology/ extremism. What started out as the right thing to do got usurped by politics and hidden agendas. Kabul in 2002 made me feel proud of the West, Kabul 2021 not so.
The B Word
5th Jan 2022, 21:53
The Blair and Broon Governments made light work of any of the smaller advantages within Crab’s list (many of which were unaffordable in the longer term and have also now gone). The biggest mistakes were:
1. Iraq and GW2 - lies and deception. Instability in the Middle East and more radicalisation.
2. Afghanistan “British troops will leave without firing a single shot” - lies and deception. More instability and more radicalisation.
3. The freedom of movement decision in May 04, the EU welcomed 10 new member states – the majority from Central and Eastern Europe – in what was the largest expansion in the history of European integration. The UK was one of only 3 member states, with Sweden and Ireland, to open its labour market to these new EU citizens immediately. The dissatisfaction this brought is the major reason why Brexit occurred (although other reasons did similar) some 14 years later when the effects of that poor decision was realised by many British people.
4. Not “making hay when the sun shines” when the economy was booming. When it went bust in 2007 then they had squandered everything leading us to SDSR10 which was probably the worst Defence Review in a generation. Plus also saw other public sector organisations suffer - the NHS were proper whammed as were the Police.
5. New Labour and China. They obviously handed back Hong Kong, but that was set up by the previous Tories. But what it did was put New Labour into an ‘engagement’ strategy with China. They also supported China’s entrance into the WTO in 2001 through that strategy. We are now reaping the significant issues of a growing China thanks to that poor strategy. China overtook the British economy in 2005, passed Germany in 2006 and past Japan into second place in 2010. That Chinese accession is a significant issue.
So, no, Bliar does not deserve a Knighthood in my opinion as he has arguably made the UK and the wider world a far worse place for many humans to live. It has also seen the West and NATO grow weaker in the past 20 years and led us to the situation we are now in with China and Russia. Surely a Knighthood for a Prime Minister should be awarded on good results rather than attendance???
Excellent - so Labour are responsible for the rise of China......? dear oh dear.
1. Iraq and GW 2 have been discussed already - no Plan B and led by the Yanks unfortunately.
2. Afghanistan - see point 1 above BUT our withdrawal was an international disgrace and lack of support for Afghans who helped us continues to be so - try blaming that on TB and Labour.
3. As Brexit has proved - we need those foreign workers and you forget the disadvantage to UK citizens who wanted to live and work in Europe - let's not even start on the loss of EU funding or how Boris is having to offer more visas in order to get a trade deal with India.
4. Have a close look at what Conservatives have done to police and NHS numbers and funding over the years - did you miss the years of austerity??? Not to mention social services, mental health, local Govt finances etc etc. And apparently looking after your population is 'unaffordable'????
5. The Conservatives have been trying to placate China over Hong Kong and continue to do so and Boris went to China in 2013 to promote trade between our countries - ignoring any human rights issues as ever.
HMTQ has given TB the knighthood, not parliament, not Boris, not the House of Lords but HMTQ. After all her years in the job, do you really think she is a bad judge of character?
As for TB making the world a worse place to live for humans - I think you should watch less Fox News.
staircase
6th Jan 2022, 08:44
Another New Year resolution gone. Having said that I would no reply here I am again. However I see crab has got there first but here goes anyway in reply to Bword
Para 1. Lies and deception a reason for going to war. Agreed, but we were always going to go to war with the Americans. Does anyone seriously think that a ‘blue’ government at the time would not have followed the Americans?
Para 2. Not firing a shot. Agreed, but we were driving around in snatch land rovers wearing soft hats. We have believed this hearts and minds rubbish since it worked in Malaya in 1950 because it is perceived to be ‘policing and on the cheap’. I am in the ‘grab them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow’ camp.
Para. 3 Totally agree with you, a chronic failure to appreciate the consequences. We needed the labour, but not at the subsequent reduction in pay rates and conditions of our own people, for example care home staff.
Para. 4. The myth that the Brown treasury spent all the money, that it maxed out the credit card. Any Google search will show that Brown actually reduced the debt to GDP ratio until the banks went bust in early 2008, and Brown was forced to pump £400 billion into the system. One could say that it was a ‘light touch’ regulation that caused this collapse, but the Tories were crying out for even less regulation to allow the City to compete with New York. Then Osborne and austerity. Don’t believe this until you Google ‘Expansionary Fiscal Contraction’. Read about it and then wonder if Austerity was not just some huge experiment by someone with an O level in economics, or at worst an ideological con trick.
Para 5. Yeah we got to close to China, but China at the time had a very different philosophy before Xi. What was a government to do, when all almost 2 decades of blue governments had allowed our industry to be sent there by company bean counters to keep their share price going up. And lets not forget call me Dave buying Xi a pint, and Osborne getting into bed with the Chinese development bank, and this after it became obvious Xi was going to be a problem.
And Mrs Staircase has just walked in to tell me to ‘get a life’, so this definitely my last word.