New Defence Secretary
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London & Edinburgh
Age: 38
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wait with interest to see what the good Doc will do for Defense - and what will be Tony's line, Gordon's line and his line.
Jordan
PS - what's TCR? (forgive my ignorance)
Jordan
PS - what's TCR? (forgive my ignorance)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: N51:37:39 W1:19:16 Feel free to use as a waypoint.
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags
There were a lot of extremely unhappy Transport (anything but car) Planners at Speedwell House on Friday.
One was seem nearly in tears at the size of the majority.
If its p1ssed them off then it must be a good thing.
So much for the ITS's now
There were a lot of extremely unhappy Transport (anything but car) Planners at Speedwell House on Friday.
One was seem nearly in tears at the size of the majority.
If its p1ssed them off then it must be a good thing.
So much for the ITS's now
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standing by for that dear old Trot pr00ne to spin some crap about what a resounding success New Liarbour had at the election....
For those with short memories
Maggie 'sweeps' into power in 1979 with a 'crushing majority' and 'mandate from the people'* - She had a majority of 43
Tony got a majority of 66 - errrr why isn't that a 'crushing majority' and 'mandate from the people?'
*Quite from the Conservative party at the time
Last edited by Maple 01; 7th May 2005 at 18:27.
Oh dear, what a bunch of bad losers!
A good headin,
I think you will find that the “poxy little advisors” to the Secretary of State are the CDS and the Chiefs of Staff.
exleckie,
What reduced budget? It’s been INCREASED in the last two budgets and Defence White papers.
I think that Reid will be a good Defence Secretary, knows the subject, has an actual interest in the subject and is his own man.
If what tetering head says is true then that just reinforces my opinion, how many of your own leadership would have taken such a stance?
BEagle,
Anything to oblige!
Now, let’s see, what is there to be pleased about?
Lots methinks!
A 67 seat majority, Blair increased the size of his own personal vote, a first EVER third term for a Labour Government and Blair is now counted as being as, if not more, successful a PM as Thatcher and Lord Palmerston. (to quote Portillo)
A good kicking? Come on! Most post war PM’s would have given their right arm for a majority the size that Blair has now, let alone in a third term, just compare this victory to that of The Tories in their third term, they had a majority of 21 as opposed to 67 yet that was seen as a magnificent victory, so how come this isn’t?
The supposedly most unpopular PM ever, who has been accused of being a liar, who has alienated a sizeable chunk of his own party by attacking Iraq in 2003 and the Tories still cannot manage a larger share of the vote than Michael Foot did in 1983, Michael Foot!!!
All in all a good night and a good night for constitutional politics, a comfortable working majority but now Blair will have to be a little more of a team player or his own back bench rebels will cause trouble, that can be nothing but good.
The Conservative Party? Oh dear, oh dear dear dear…………………………..
A good headin,
I think you will find that the “poxy little advisors” to the Secretary of State are the CDS and the Chiefs of Staff.
exleckie,
What reduced budget? It’s been INCREASED in the last two budgets and Defence White papers.
I think that Reid will be a good Defence Secretary, knows the subject, has an actual interest in the subject and is his own man.
If what tetering head says is true then that just reinforces my opinion, how many of your own leadership would have taken such a stance?
BEagle,
Anything to oblige!
Now, let’s see, what is there to be pleased about?
Lots methinks!
A 67 seat majority, Blair increased the size of his own personal vote, a first EVER third term for a Labour Government and Blair is now counted as being as, if not more, successful a PM as Thatcher and Lord Palmerston. (to quote Portillo)
A good kicking? Come on! Most post war PM’s would have given their right arm for a majority the size that Blair has now, let alone in a third term, just compare this victory to that of The Tories in their third term, they had a majority of 21 as opposed to 67 yet that was seen as a magnificent victory, so how come this isn’t?
The supposedly most unpopular PM ever, who has been accused of being a liar, who has alienated a sizeable chunk of his own party by attacking Iraq in 2003 and the Tories still cannot manage a larger share of the vote than Michael Foot did in 1983, Michael Foot!!!
All in all a good night and a good night for constitutional politics, a comfortable working majority but now Blair will have to be a little more of a team player or his own back bench rebels will cause trouble, that can be nothing but good.
The Conservative Party? Oh dear, oh dear dear dear…………………………..
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Germany, the home of the sausage
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Met him once at Cranditz and was impressed with his depth of knowledge of numerous topics. With an incisive mind and straight talking manner, he is probably the best of the bunch for this position. I also suspect that he actually cares about defence.....which is a change!
pr00ne - you spout more utterly nonsensical spin than 'Comical Ali' Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf did during GW2....
And you probably even believe it.
And you probably even believe it.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: where should i be today????
Age: 57
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does it really matter who is the minister. After another term under Mr B we will be subjected to even more cuts. The RAF will still be the RAF. Unfortunately it will stand for Royal Air Flight and not Royal Air Force.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Fife
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There really are a helluva lot of politically naive people out there. Unfortunately, that's probably why we get people calling 36% of the ote an astounding success! Let's not forget that that percentage left Jim Callaghan with a mere 3-seat majority. The sooner we realise we live in a society governed by an oligarchy who are there because of strings pulled the sooner we might get back to something approaching democracy.
Thd trouble is, most of us Ppruners are as bad as Blair - we think we know best!!!
Thd trouble is, most of us Ppruners are as bad as Blair - we think we know best!!!
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’ll say, those complaining that Labour didn't get 50% so therefore have no legitimacy obviously haven't noticed that with three-way politics no-one is ever likely to again, either
Now before we hear that ‘only’ 36% voted for Labour, remember the Liberal Democrats got about 22% and the others got about 8%, allowing for the BNP and UKIP about 60% of the electorate voted left-centralist or left, which means, boys and girls, the traditionalist Tory views displayed predominantly here are not shared by the majority of the Great British public.
No need to
just end the hostility and work with whoever we get, unless you think the mil are above the rule of law, perhaps the coup d'état planning starts here?
Now before we hear that ‘only’ 36% voted for Labour, remember the Liberal Democrats got about 22% and the others got about 8%, allowing for the BNP and UKIP about 60% of the electorate voted left-centralist or left, which means, boys and girls, the traditionalist Tory views displayed predominantly here are not shared by the majority of the Great British public.
No need to
just end the hostility and work with whoever we get, unless you think the mil are above the rule of law, perhaps the coup d'état planning starts here?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pr00ne you are right to say that the Defence Budget was increased in the last public sector spending review but what is not generally known is the list of things the MOD were now going to have to pay for was increased as well. Major item was the cost of operations. The accepted Treasury norm is that the cost of operations sits outside the annual defence budget because we never know what will come up. Therefore costs for Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone etc are charged either to the Treasury (reserve) or the Global Conflict Prevention Fund (a mix of MOD, FCO and DfID cash). However, last time round HMT said that for some enduring operations like the the Balkans the MOD could reasonably predict expenditure and would in future have to fund these elements from within resources. Now they're not complete barstewards and they gave us the cash to do this with - trouble is they didn't give us enough and then spoke large about the increase in defence budget. Bit of an Irishman's rise really so no surprise that despite the 'longest period of increased defence spending in decades' we're still a bit strapped for cash and hence the swingeing cuts, sorry rebalancing, that are, is, taking place right now.
Still great fun though and as I used to say when teaching combat: never, ever give up!
Still great fun though and as I used to say when teaching combat: never, ever give up!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happytruckin
I reckon 90% of those serving in the armed forces couldn't tell you how many of their comrades have died as a result of the current military action in Iraq.
Are you really surprised the PM didn't know the exact figure? He said, "Seventy to eighty". The figure is 87. He could hardly be described as being clueless on the matter. Far be it from me to defend the man, but I think this is nit picking of the highest order.
I reckon 90% of those serving in the armed forces couldn't tell you how many of their comrades have died as a result of the current military action in Iraq.
Are you really surprised the PM didn't know the exact figure? He said, "Seventy to eighty". The figure is 87. He could hardly be described as being clueless on the matter. Far be it from me to defend the man, but I think this is nit picking of the highest order.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you Beagle.. David Cameron would make a good leader of the Conservatives. He impressed me during a CH4 roasting with Jon Snow, held his own very well - Bit young though methinks. You're lucky to have him as your MP - I'm stuck with a 'Labour Lite' trot whose only duty to his constituency is to build 50,000 new thermo boxes in it...
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note JR is an ex Min NI as well as ex S/S Health. Two "Angola ministries" (coined by the current Irish Minister for Finance about Health because of the tendencies for landmines) if ever there were.
Seems like a survivor to me!
As for someone who really REALLY wanted to be S/S Defence - read Alan Clark's Diaries.
Seems like a survivor to me!
As for someone who really REALLY wanted to be S/S Defence - read Alan Clark's Diaries.
BEagle,
Spin? Facts old chap, just old fashioned facts, just a shame they get in the way of some peoples view of the world.
Happytruckin,
Do you think Michael Howard would have known exacty? Did you know?
Spin? Facts old chap, just old fashioned facts, just a shame they get in the way of some peoples view of the world.
Happytruckin,
Do you think Michael Howard would have known exacty? Did you know?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
prOOne
"All in all a good night and a good night for constitutional politics,"
But not a good night for democracy, one of the two words not allowed to be uttered in New labour circles (the other being socialist).
The turn out of the eligible electorate was just over 61.2%. Labour share of the vote 36.1%.
Therefore we now have a government that has a 'mandate' because it was positively endorsed by 22.09% of 'the people'.
39.1% of the overall electorate positively do not want the present government.
You can do anything with spin - good example was 51% majority in Wales in favour of the Welsh Assembly on a turnout of about 25% of the electorate being translated as a "a majority of the Welsh (i.e. about 12 1/2 %) supporting the creation of the Assembly"
Still, at least the Iraqi's can be thankful that the we have restored them to democracy (under a system of proportional representation).
"All in all a good night and a good night for constitutional politics,"
But not a good night for democracy, one of the two words not allowed to be uttered in New labour circles (the other being socialist).
The turn out of the eligible electorate was just over 61.2%. Labour share of the vote 36.1%.
Therefore we now have a government that has a 'mandate' because it was positively endorsed by 22.09% of 'the people'.
39.1% of the overall electorate positively do not want the present government.
You can do anything with spin - good example was 51% majority in Wales in favour of the Welsh Assembly on a turnout of about 25% of the electorate being translated as a "a majority of the Welsh (i.e. about 12 1/2 %) supporting the creation of the Assembly"
Still, at least the Iraqi's can be thankful that the we have restored them to democracy (under a system of proportional representation).
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legalapproach, what part of my post didn't you understand? 60% of the electorate rejected right-wing politics as represented by the BNP, UKIP and the Tories
The fact that many couldn't be @rsed to vote is their problem, no vote, no voice - can't complain there
Five more years! and if the rumours about the replacement for Tory leader are true.....
The fact that many couldn't be @rsed to vote is their problem, no vote, no voice - can't complain there
Five more years! and if the rumours about the replacement for Tory leader are true.....
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 67 seat majority, Blair increased the size of his own personal vote, a first EVER third term for a Labour Government and Blair is now counted as being as, if not more, successful a PM as Thatcher and Lord Palmerston. (to quote Portillo)
I am trying to recall previous occasions when a party lost nearly 50 seats.
1983 - Tories 58 seats up.
1987 - Tories 21 seats down.
1992 - Tories 40 seats down.
1997 - Tories 178 seats down.
2001 - Labour 5 seats down.
2005 - Labour 47 seats down.
Inconvenient Fact #1: Labour have 356 seats, 41 seats less than the Tories in 1983. So the Tory/Michael Foot comparison is not valid, particularly with the strong third party showing from the Lib Dems.
IF#2: The list indicates that Labour are losing support at a greater rate than the Tories in 1987 and 1992, when the Tories had more seats and lost fewer. Neil Kinnock only gained 20 seats in 1987, and doubled this to 42 seats in 1992.
IF #3: Blair equals Margaret Thatcher at present, with three election victories. To surpass her, he must hand over a party capable of a fourth victory. This is possible, but if the 2005 Labour decline is repeated in 2009/2010 then they will not gain a majority. It depends how much damage Blair does in the next 12 months! This also assumes that the rate of decline does not change and that the Tories and the Lib Dems put in a similar performance in 4-5 years. If the Tories inprove their showing as Neil Kinnock did between 1987 and 1992, then the Tories will constitute the largest minority party in 2009/2010 with 263 seats.
IF#4: There are about a dozen Labour seats that were saved (with tiny majorities) because of UKIP and Respect eating into the Tory and Lib Dem votes. If not for these parties, the Labour majority would be slightly more than 40!
The election was won in spite of Blair, not because of him. There are two winners. Firstly, Gordon Brown is sitting almost exactly where he wants to be. Polling has indicated that Brown would have substantially increased the Labour lead if he was leader and not Blair. Blair has been terribly damaged and the Labour Party itself is sitting in a respectable position that can be salvaged. That depends on a tidy succession - if Bliar continues to anger the electorate, then it will be a Lab/Lib coalition in 5 years time! Secondly, the House of Commons will be able to hold the Government to account. No more juggernaut legislation hammered through with a massive majority. No more illegal wars!
A very interesting election that has sealed the fate of Blair.
legalapproach,
At the risk of repeating what Maple01 has already said more than adequately, we live in a Parliamentary democracy that has a first past the post system, we do not live in a 2 party state, we have multiple political parties and you yourself can set one up for a very small financial outlay and see if you get support. More people voted Labour than for any other party so they form the Government, that’s how it has always worked.
JessTheDog,
I’m trying to recall when a party had a majority as large as 161, it hasn’t happened very often so there have not been many opportunities for such a loss of seats and for a party to STILL retain such a comfortable working majority.
In 1945 the Tries lost 177 seats
In 1964 the Tories lost 61 seats
In 1966 the Tories lost 51 seats
Inconvenient fact, in this election the anti Blair and anti war factor worked heavily against labour, in two years time both those factors will have disappeared and the Tories will be in big trouble, again!
At the risk of repeating what Maple01 has already said more than adequately, we live in a Parliamentary democracy that has a first past the post system, we do not live in a 2 party state, we have multiple political parties and you yourself can set one up for a very small financial outlay and see if you get support. More people voted Labour than for any other party so they form the Government, that’s how it has always worked.
JessTheDog,
I’m trying to recall when a party had a majority as large as 161, it hasn’t happened very often so there have not been many opportunities for such a loss of seats and for a party to STILL retain such a comfortable working majority.
In 1945 the Tries lost 177 seats
In 1964 the Tories lost 61 seats
In 1966 the Tories lost 51 seats
Inconvenient fact, in this election the anti Blair and anti war factor worked heavily against labour, in two years time both those factors will have disappeared and the Tories will be in big trouble, again!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m trying to recall when a party had a majority as large as 161, it hasn’t happened very often so there have not been many opportunities for such a loss of seats and for a party to STILL retain such a comfortable working majority.
In 1945 the Tries lost 177 seats
In 1964 the Tories lost 61 seats
In 1966 the Tories lost 51 seats
Inconvenient fact, in this election the anti Blair and anti war factor worked heavily against labour, in two years time both those factors will have disappeared and the Tories will be in big trouble, again!
In 1945 the Tries lost 177 seats
In 1964 the Tories lost 61 seats
In 1966 the Tories lost 51 seats
Inconvenient fact, in this election the anti Blair and anti war factor worked heavily against labour, in two years time both those factors will have disappeared and the Tories will be in big trouble, again!
Is there any significance in the "two years time" quote?
Brown has a major problem. He cannot please Middle England and the core Labour party in the way that Blair did - both communities have grown wise to the smoke and mirrors. He cannot sit on the fence. I suspect that Labour will quietly ditch the "New" prefix. If the economy is in good shape, then Brown may well get a fourth term for Labour. If it is flagging, then the Tories have an excellent chance.