Toothless Poodle
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Labour
Tony Blair and New Labour
Like many people in this country, I don’t consider myself ‘political’ in any sense - I have never belonged to any political party and, although my vote has usually been cast more to the right than left over the last 40 odd years, no particular party could ever been guaranteed my support in a general election.
Like my others, I suppose my antipathy towards politicians in this country generally deepened during the John Major administration, where money-grubbing inadequates appeared more interested in lining their own pockets than serving the interests of the electorate. Whatever some commentators choose to say about John Major, and leaving aside his leg-over with Edwina, I would maintain that he was an essentially decent, intelligent and honest individual. Unfortunately he was also weakened and at times utterly hamstrung by a razor-thin majority and, as a consequence, allowed himself to be surrounded by some shysters and outright crooks. Like everyone else at the time, I was glad to see the back of him and his administration – at the time I had a vote in Major’s constituency and even voted for the Referendum Party in protest.
Blair and New Labour seemed almost too good to be true, particularly his promise for a ‘whiter than white administration'. Time has shown that Blair himself is as bad as any of the sleezy creeps that infested Major’s administration. He and his dreadful wife are a pair of serial liars, who have spent much of their time in Downing Street trying to find new ways to bury their snouts in the money trough of crooked businessmen and corrupt foreign politicians. He is serially addicted to ‘willy-waving’ in his attempts to appear a front-rank international statesman and whilst happy to commit British forces here, there and everywhere, lacks the personal integrity to ensure they are either adequately funded or equipped for the task in hand.
With a major deployment to Afghanistan planned for 2006 appearing rapidly over the horizon, I think that the UK armed forces are facing a real personnel crisis. After being repeatedly lied to and betrayed by Blair, service personnel are now leaving the armed forces in record numbers. Of course some people will try and disguise the true figures, but they cannot hide the fact that far fewer experienced men and women are extending their service or they’re taking the opportunity to PVR or buy themselves out. The TA is also haemorrhaging experienced personnel at a rate never experienced before and, if current trends continue, will be even less than useless as an effective back up to the regular Army.
I would like to see the back of Blair and his incompetent, sleezy administration, but I frankly doubt that over time the Tories or anyone else would be any better. The sad fact is that in recent years almost everyone in this country has been badly served by the vast majority of the politicians we have chosen to elect, but unfortunately in a democratic country that’s what sometimes happens – but in time it might change. In the meantime, no matter what else he does whilst he hangs on in office, Blair’s own epitaph should be as follows: Tony Blair was a corrupt, serial liar who, despite quite limited ability, somehow managed to remain in office only because at the time the opposition were utterly useless.
“Power is what men seek, and any group that gets it will abuse it. It is the same old story” Lincoln Steffens
Like many people in this country, I don’t consider myself ‘political’ in any sense - I have never belonged to any political party and, although my vote has usually been cast more to the right than left over the last 40 odd years, no particular party could ever been guaranteed my support in a general election.
Like my others, I suppose my antipathy towards politicians in this country generally deepened during the John Major administration, where money-grubbing inadequates appeared more interested in lining their own pockets than serving the interests of the electorate. Whatever some commentators choose to say about John Major, and leaving aside his leg-over with Edwina, I would maintain that he was an essentially decent, intelligent and honest individual. Unfortunately he was also weakened and at times utterly hamstrung by a razor-thin majority and, as a consequence, allowed himself to be surrounded by some shysters and outright crooks. Like everyone else at the time, I was glad to see the back of him and his administration – at the time I had a vote in Major’s constituency and even voted for the Referendum Party in protest.
Blair and New Labour seemed almost too good to be true, particularly his promise for a ‘whiter than white administration'. Time has shown that Blair himself is as bad as any of the sleezy creeps that infested Major’s administration. He and his dreadful wife are a pair of serial liars, who have spent much of their time in Downing Street trying to find new ways to bury their snouts in the money trough of crooked businessmen and corrupt foreign politicians. He is serially addicted to ‘willy-waving’ in his attempts to appear a front-rank international statesman and whilst happy to commit British forces here, there and everywhere, lacks the personal integrity to ensure they are either adequately funded or equipped for the task in hand.
With a major deployment to Afghanistan planned for 2006 appearing rapidly over the horizon, I think that the UK armed forces are facing a real personnel crisis. After being repeatedly lied to and betrayed by Blair, service personnel are now leaving the armed forces in record numbers. Of course some people will try and disguise the true figures, but they cannot hide the fact that far fewer experienced men and women are extending their service or they’re taking the opportunity to PVR or buy themselves out. The TA is also haemorrhaging experienced personnel at a rate never experienced before and, if current trends continue, will be even less than useless as an effective back up to the regular Army.
I would like to see the back of Blair and his incompetent, sleezy administration, but I frankly doubt that over time the Tories or anyone else would be any better. The sad fact is that in recent years almost everyone in this country has been badly served by the vast majority of the politicians we have chosen to elect, but unfortunately in a democratic country that’s what sometimes happens – but in time it might change. In the meantime, no matter what else he does whilst he hangs on in office, Blair’s own epitaph should be as follows: Tony Blair was a corrupt, serial liar who, despite quite limited ability, somehow managed to remain in office only because at the time the opposition were utterly useless.
“Power is what men seek, and any group that gets it will abuse it. It is the same old story” Lincoln Steffens
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Both the above are nothing to do with which Govt is in power, they are the responsibility of uniformed players a long way from the ministerial level, if we can’t provide such items from a £30Billion pound defence budget then it is a sad state of affairs"
Quote from above which EVERYONE should heed
Quote from above which EVERYONE should heed
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proletarian Nice post and you mention that:
"Tony Blair was a corrupt, serial liar who, despite quite limited ability, somehow managed to remain in office only because at the time the opposition were utterly useless."
Maybe Saint Tone gets help to stay in power from another quarter?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ball gazing
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beardies..
.."never trust a man (or woman, Conan) with a beard" my old Gran used to say - "If he can't be ar*ed shaving, what else is he good for?"
Blunkett: It's not like he didn't see it coming, is it? (Is it?)
Blunkett: It's not like he didn't see it coming, is it? (Is it?)
WorkingHard and Proone. £30B? More Noo Liarbour spin? Now reduce that amount by the RAB and depreciation charges inflicted upon (all?) government departments and you will see that the true cash figure is closer to £24B. Not that that is an insignifciant amount (but it is only a quarter of that given to the bloated NHS and only a third of the equally bloated social security budget).
Now lets look at this governments procurement policy (NOTE government NOT military senior officers). How often are the military directed to buy a weapons system which is more expensive than that recommended by the procurement teams? Lets start with Meteor and the Hawk replacement. In the case of the Hawk the cost was approx 1/3 more than the rival solution. Both met the requirement but the MOD were directed to buy Hawk (surely nothing to do with the fact the factory is in Two Jags constituency?). Did HMT provide the 1/3 additional required? Did they b*ggery! That 1/3 had to be found from "savings and efficiency" measures from within the MOD (for which read cuts). Perhaps part of those savings were in not procuring more body armour or armoured Land Rovers!
To say that the government are removed from procurement decisions is utter b*ll*cks.
Now lets look at this governments procurement policy (NOTE government NOT military senior officers). How often are the military directed to buy a weapons system which is more expensive than that recommended by the procurement teams? Lets start with Meteor and the Hawk replacement. In the case of the Hawk the cost was approx 1/3 more than the rival solution. Both met the requirement but the MOD were directed to buy Hawk (surely nothing to do with the fact the factory is in Two Jags constituency?). Did HMT provide the 1/3 additional required? Did they b*ggery! That 1/3 had to be found from "savings and efficiency" measures from within the MOD (for which read cuts). Perhaps part of those savings were in not procuring more body armour or armoured Land Rovers!
To say that the government are removed from procurement decisions is utter b*ll*cks.
Roland Pulfrew,
Not just ALL Gov’t departments but the rest of the real world, RAB is a standard accounting practice used by commerce and industry the world over AND IT WAS INTRODUCED BY THE TORIES.
I never said the Govt are removed from procurement decisions, I said they as individuals have nothing to do with the lack of armoured Land Rovers or individual body armour in Iraq, those actions are way way down the food chain and are uniformed decisions.
As to the Hawk, so you think it a better procurement move to adopt an unproven, twin engined design of Russian origin that is the result of a failed commercial partnership and has been bought by no-one else and totally ignore the existing in-place infrastructure, experience and support facilities of the current Hawk fleet?
Glad YOU don’t work in procurement, or do you?
Not just ALL Gov’t departments but the rest of the real world, RAB is a standard accounting practice used by commerce and industry the world over AND IT WAS INTRODUCED BY THE TORIES.
I never said the Govt are removed from procurement decisions, I said they as individuals have nothing to do with the lack of armoured Land Rovers or individual body armour in Iraq, those actions are way way down the food chain and are uniformed decisions.
As to the Hawk, so you think it a better procurement move to adopt an unproven, twin engined design of Russian origin that is the result of a failed commercial partnership and has been bought by no-one else and totally ignore the existing in-place infrastructure, experience and support facilities of the current Hawk fleet?
Glad YOU don’t work in procurement, or do you?
prOOne
First I never said which government introduced RAB, if it was the Tories then it was the Tories (I did not support them at the last 2 general elections so not sure what your point is).
Secondly RAB and all its effects hit the MOD in 2002/03, under the LABOUR government. RAB may be a good way for industry and business to keep an eye on their holdings/net worth etc but largely is immaterial to a non profit making organisation. The effects of RAB have been rediculous within the MOD, probably through poor advice and lack of training. Why else did we see armoured Land Rovers (which the MOD have bought and paid for) being sold off to avoid RAB and depreciation charges only to be bought back (at much inflated prices) when we needed them. Good use of the taxpayers money? I think not.
I see you do not deny the main thrust of the argument which is that ON PAPER the MOD receive £30B, but they do not get £30B cash. £6-7B is "returned" to HMT in RAB and depreciation charges. The MOD do not therefore get to "spend" £30B on people and equipment.
Next as the MOD/DPA now work in 'whole life costs', the decisions to procure new kit are made on the costs of all elements including infrastructure etc. Much of the infrastructure would not need to be changed nor would much of the GSE. As to unproven design etc etc much of our kit would never be procured if we stuck to the "Well its a Land Rover* replacement so we must buy a new Land Rover*" argument that you seem to advocate.
*- Insert as required; Hawk, submarine, aircraft carrier, Harrier, Hercules.
Much of the "experience" we have on the Hawk T1 will be of limited benefit as the 127 is significantly different from the T1 anyway.
And you also miss the point that government directed procurements such as the Hawk do have a major impact on what else is bought. The additional costs required to buy Hawk (approx 1/3 more expensive than the opposition) have to be found from within the Defence budget - it is not provided by HMT. So the MOD and DPA recommend the alternative, the Government direct the Hawk but do not provide additional funds, so the extra 1/3 has to be found from within the EP. That means other procurements are delayed, or reduced in size, or cancelled. The decisions as to what goes are decision conferenced by staffs from DEC (MOD), DPA, RP Staffs, DGE's Dept etc etc. All decisions go to the IAB and the budget is signed off by SofS. Sadly therefore government directed procurements, directed by individuals who sit around the Cabinet, do have an impact on what is procured at other levels. If you need to find another £ x million for the government directed and therefore mandated kit something else has to go - simple!
Sorry - bit off topic, I apologise.
First I never said which government introduced RAB, if it was the Tories then it was the Tories (I did not support them at the last 2 general elections so not sure what your point is).
Secondly RAB and all its effects hit the MOD in 2002/03, under the LABOUR government. RAB may be a good way for industry and business to keep an eye on their holdings/net worth etc but largely is immaterial to a non profit making organisation. The effects of RAB have been rediculous within the MOD, probably through poor advice and lack of training. Why else did we see armoured Land Rovers (which the MOD have bought and paid for) being sold off to avoid RAB and depreciation charges only to be bought back (at much inflated prices) when we needed them. Good use of the taxpayers money? I think not.
I see you do not deny the main thrust of the argument which is that ON PAPER the MOD receive £30B, but they do not get £30B cash. £6-7B is "returned" to HMT in RAB and depreciation charges. The MOD do not therefore get to "spend" £30B on people and equipment.
Next as the MOD/DPA now work in 'whole life costs', the decisions to procure new kit are made on the costs of all elements including infrastructure etc. Much of the infrastructure would not need to be changed nor would much of the GSE. As to unproven design etc etc much of our kit would never be procured if we stuck to the "Well its a Land Rover* replacement so we must buy a new Land Rover*" argument that you seem to advocate.
*- Insert as required; Hawk, submarine, aircraft carrier, Harrier, Hercules.
Much of the "experience" we have on the Hawk T1 will be of limited benefit as the 127 is significantly different from the T1 anyway.
And you also miss the point that government directed procurements such as the Hawk do have a major impact on what else is bought. The additional costs required to buy Hawk (approx 1/3 more expensive than the opposition) have to be found from within the Defence budget - it is not provided by HMT. So the MOD and DPA recommend the alternative, the Government direct the Hawk but do not provide additional funds, so the extra 1/3 has to be found from within the EP. That means other procurements are delayed, or reduced in size, or cancelled. The decisions as to what goes are decision conferenced by staffs from DEC (MOD), DPA, RP Staffs, DGE's Dept etc etc. All decisions go to the IAB and the budget is signed off by SofS. Sadly therefore government directed procurements, directed by individuals who sit around the Cabinet, do have an impact on what is procured at other levels. If you need to find another £ x million for the government directed and therefore mandated kit something else has to go - simple!
Sorry - bit off topic, I apologise.
JessTheDog,
It's called democracy, it's the system being used for what it was designed for.
It's called democracy, it's the system being used for what it was designed for.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: berlin
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ex-envoy defies Blair on Iraq war
Sarah Lyall, New York Times
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2005
London. On Monday, 7 November, the former British ambassador to the United States accused Prime Minister Tony Blair of squandering a golden opportunity to push the United States to delay the invasion of Iraq.
On Tuesday, he characterized Blair's government as, mostly, "a crowd of pygmies."
These assessments, and others, appear in a memoir by the former ambassador, Christopher Meyer, which is being excerpted in British newspapers. Although Blair's Labour government is affecting an insouciance about Meyer's unflattering analysis, the book is proving a huge embarrassment at a time when the prime minister is confronting restiveness in his own party and sturdier than usual challenges from the Conservative opposition.
Meyer, who supported the invasion of Iraq, was known as a skilled ambassador with impeccable contacts who witnessed, or took part in, much of the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that led up to the war. That he has broken so completely with the British government tradition of discretion and loyalty, publishing his book so soon after the events he describes - and while Blair is still in office - makes it particularly shocking.
Meyer is now back in London, where he works as chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. He told The Guardian that he did not write the book, titled "D.C. Confidential," for the money and that he planned to donate the proceeds from the newspaper serializations to several children's charities.
Meyer is particularly damning about what he sees as the rush to war in Iraq, accusing the British government and the Bush administration of being ill prepared to deal with the aftermath of the invasion.
"History's verdict," he writes of the war, "looks likely to be that it was terminally flawed both in conception and execution."
In the book, Meyer charges that Blair could have used his influence to delay the Iraq war by six months or so - buying crucial time to determine whether Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, to seek a second UN resolution authorizing the use of military intervention, and to formulate a coherent long-term plan for post-Saddam Iraq.
"Indeed, if it all went wrong at the UN, and the U.S. was faced with going to war alone, it seemed to me that Bush might blink," Meyer writes.
Sarah Lyall, New York Times
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2005
London. On Monday, 7 November, the former British ambassador to the United States accused Prime Minister Tony Blair of squandering a golden opportunity to push the United States to delay the invasion of Iraq.
On Tuesday, he characterized Blair's government as, mostly, "a crowd of pygmies."
These assessments, and others, appear in a memoir by the former ambassador, Christopher Meyer, which is being excerpted in British newspapers. Although Blair's Labour government is affecting an insouciance about Meyer's unflattering analysis, the book is proving a huge embarrassment at a time when the prime minister is confronting restiveness in his own party and sturdier than usual challenges from the Conservative opposition.
Meyer, who supported the invasion of Iraq, was known as a skilled ambassador with impeccable contacts who witnessed, or took part in, much of the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that led up to the war. That he has broken so completely with the British government tradition of discretion and loyalty, publishing his book so soon after the events he describes - and while Blair is still in office - makes it particularly shocking.
Meyer is now back in London, where he works as chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. He told The Guardian that he did not write the book, titled "D.C. Confidential," for the money and that he planned to donate the proceeds from the newspaper serializations to several children's charities.
Meyer is particularly damning about what he sees as the rush to war in Iraq, accusing the British government and the Bush administration of being ill prepared to deal with the aftermath of the invasion.
"History's verdict," he writes of the war, "looks likely to be that it was terminally flawed both in conception and execution."
In the book, Meyer charges that Blair could have used his influence to delay the Iraq war by six months or so - buying crucial time to determine whether Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, to seek a second UN resolution authorizing the use of military intervention, and to formulate a coherent long-term plan for post-Saddam Iraq.
"Indeed, if it all went wrong at the UN, and the U.S. was faced with going to war alone, it seemed to me that Bush might blink," Meyer writes.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like there’s blood in the water and the sharks have picked it up. Can’t be long now before Bliar’s MPs start biting chunks out of him, leading to a feeding frenzy, ripping him to shreds. Brown and buddies must surely now be positioning for the imminent carnage?
BBC Web Site. 10 November 2005
Blair defeated over terror laws
Tony Blair says his authority is intact despite suffering his first House of Commons defeat as prime minister.
He said he hoped MPs do not rue the day they rejected his call to allow police to detain terror suspects for up to 90 days without charging them.
MPs voted against by 322 votes to 291, with 49 Labour MPs rebelling, but later backed a proposal to extend the detention time limit to 28 days.
Conservative leader Michael Howard said Mr Blair should resign.
Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy warned Mr Blair could become a lame duck leader.
Following the defeat MPs backed by 323 to 290 votes a Labour backbench MP's proposal to extend the detention time limit to 28 days, from the current 14 days.
And, while the prime minister is a fighter and - until now - a survivor, the fact he has already announced he will quit before the next election may make that pressure for him to go soon irresistible.
The defeat came after Mr Blair stunned Westminster MPs by suddenly abandoning plans to seek a cross-party consensus and instead launching a ferocious campaign in support of the 90 day option.
On that he appeared to be ignoring the advice of many in his party, including Home Secretary Charles Clarke who had throughout been suggesting he was open to a compromise and only changed tune at the last moment.
Chief police officers, who originally proposed the detention period, lobbied MPs for their case and ministers and Blair loyalists did everything to win over dissenters.
Mr Blair attempted to shave off some Tory backbench votes by suggesting they were in the "wrong place" on the issue and had gone soft on terror.
There has been a suggestion that Mr Blair knew he was already facing serious revolts over his so-called "legacy" welfare reforms and decided to pick a knockdown fight on this issue instead, believing he had the support of the public.
It is also possible he hoped the black and white nature of the issue - in which he effectively suggested MPs were either with him and the police or against them - would concentrate minds.
And, had he won, he would have felt strengthened in his other reforms and his rebels weakened.
In the event there appeared to be a backlash at his tactics and rhetoric and what many saw as the attempt to paint them as soft on terror.
And at the end of the day, the prime minister failed. Not by a bit but comprehensively. His other reforms will now also face serious trouble.
BBC Web Site. 10 November 2005
Blair defeated over terror laws
Tony Blair says his authority is intact despite suffering his first House of Commons defeat as prime minister.
He said he hoped MPs do not rue the day they rejected his call to allow police to detain terror suspects for up to 90 days without charging them.
MPs voted against by 322 votes to 291, with 49 Labour MPs rebelling, but later backed a proposal to extend the detention time limit to 28 days.
Conservative leader Michael Howard said Mr Blair should resign.
Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy warned Mr Blair could become a lame duck leader.
Following the defeat MPs backed by 323 to 290 votes a Labour backbench MP's proposal to extend the detention time limit to 28 days, from the current 14 days.
And, while the prime minister is a fighter and - until now - a survivor, the fact he has already announced he will quit before the next election may make that pressure for him to go soon irresistible.
The defeat came after Mr Blair stunned Westminster MPs by suddenly abandoning plans to seek a cross-party consensus and instead launching a ferocious campaign in support of the 90 day option.
On that he appeared to be ignoring the advice of many in his party, including Home Secretary Charles Clarke who had throughout been suggesting he was open to a compromise and only changed tune at the last moment.
Chief police officers, who originally proposed the detention period, lobbied MPs for their case and ministers and Blair loyalists did everything to win over dissenters.
Mr Blair attempted to shave off some Tory backbench votes by suggesting they were in the "wrong place" on the issue and had gone soft on terror.
There has been a suggestion that Mr Blair knew he was already facing serious revolts over his so-called "legacy" welfare reforms and decided to pick a knockdown fight on this issue instead, believing he had the support of the public.
It is also possible he hoped the black and white nature of the issue - in which he effectively suggested MPs were either with him and the police or against them - would concentrate minds.
And, had he won, he would have felt strengthened in his other reforms and his rebels weakened.
In the event there appeared to be a backlash at his tactics and rhetoric and what many saw as the attempt to paint them as soft on terror.
And at the end of the day, the prime minister failed. Not by a bit but comprehensively. His other reforms will now also face serious trouble.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jstars2'
As Private Eye put it
Face it, bloke's got an axe to grind, a book to sell and a syndication deal with that unbiased 'newspaper' The Daily Mail (Of 'Hurrah for the Black Shirts' fame)
As Private Eye put it
'The Ultimate Bore'
By Sir Crispin Mandarin
Among Sir Crispin's sensational claims are the following
The war in Iraq was a bit of a cock-up
Blair supported Bush instead of not supporting him
Er.....
....That's it...
……..If only my talents had been recognised earlier. World War Two would never have happened.
Tomorrow
9/11 How it could have been avoided if only I had know about it in advance
By Sir Crispin Mandarin
Among Sir Crispin's sensational claims are the following
The war in Iraq was a bit of a cock-up
Blair supported Bush instead of not supporting him
Er.....
....That's it...
……..If only my talents had been recognised earlier. World War Two would never have happened.
Tomorrow
9/11 How it could have been avoided if only I had know about it in advance
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: berlin
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maple 01
You mentioned that: "Face it, bloke's got an axe to grind, a book to sell and a syndication deal with that unbiased 'newspaper' The Daily Mail."
May I point out to you that the distinctly left wing Grauniad has just published its third extract from the book. Here
Also an interesting cartoon from the same stable, which might indicate to you the way the wind is starting to blow.
You mentioned that: "Face it, bloke's got an axe to grind, a book to sell and a syndication deal with that unbiased 'newspaper' The Daily Mail."
May I point out to you that the distinctly left wing Grauniad has just published its third extract from the book. Here
Also an interesting cartoon from the same stable, which might indicate to you the way the wind is starting to blow.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir Christopher Meyer, lately Her Britannic Majesty's Ambassador in Washington, says in his newly published book, amongst other things, that Mr Blair was seduced by the glamour of American power, and did not use his leverage to slow down the timetable of war with Saddam.
Perhaps this observation, more than any other, lends validity to the perjorative - that simpering little whore Blair, quoted elswhere in this thread.
However, I think that what is now important, if one believes in (and hopes for) the imminent demise of the Great Helmsman, is the likely stance of his erstwhile colleague Gordon Brown, when circumstances eventually impose the full terms of the Grantita agreement, reached many years ago between the two and serially welshed on, in characteristic form, by Bliar.
Brown is old style socialism writ large but packaged artfully. He will not have a cosy relationship with Dubya. He will continue his cold aloofness towards the UK armed forces. And, importantly, he will reappraise the disposition of these forces at the earliest decent opportunity (or even before). Do not look for further commitment towards USA - in fact look for the reverse.
The up-side would be, in my humble estimation, a reappearance of the old style, to quote M. Thatcher, clear blue water, between Labour and the Tories.
Perhaps we might shortly be seeing light at the end of the tunnel?
Perhaps this observation, more than any other, lends validity to the perjorative - that simpering little whore Blair, quoted elswhere in this thread.
However, I think that what is now important, if one believes in (and hopes for) the imminent demise of the Great Helmsman, is the likely stance of his erstwhile colleague Gordon Brown, when circumstances eventually impose the full terms of the Grantita agreement, reached many years ago between the two and serially welshed on, in characteristic form, by Bliar.
Brown is old style socialism writ large but packaged artfully. He will not have a cosy relationship with Dubya. He will continue his cold aloofness towards the UK armed forces. And, importantly, he will reappraise the disposition of these forces at the earliest decent opportunity (or even before). Do not look for further commitment towards USA - in fact look for the reverse.
The up-side would be, in my humble estimation, a reappearance of the old style, to quote M. Thatcher, clear blue water, between Labour and the Tories.
Perhaps we might shortly be seeing light at the end of the tunnel?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joined up Defence/Foreign Policy?
BBC - 25 September 2005 - Prime Minister Tony Blair has denied reports that British soldiers will start withdrawing from Iraq next May.
Any exit strategy "depends on the job being done", he told BBC's Sunday AM.
Observer - 25 September 2005 - Reports in the Observer newspaper suggested that Britain had already "privately" informed Japan of its plans to begin withdrawing from southern Iraq next May.
BBC – 13 November 2005 - British troops could leave Iraq by the end of next year, the country's president Jalal Talabani has predicted.
Defence Secretary John Reid told the BBC a pull-out beginning next year was a possibility.
BBC - 25 September 2005 - Prime Minister Tony Blair has denied reports that British soldiers will start withdrawing from Iraq next May.
Any exit strategy "depends on the job being done", he told BBC's Sunday AM.
Observer - 25 September 2005 - Reports in the Observer newspaper suggested that Britain had already "privately" informed Japan of its plans to begin withdrawing from southern Iraq next May.
BBC – 13 November 2005 - British troops could leave Iraq by the end of next year, the country's president Jalal Talabani has predicted.
Defence Secretary John Reid told the BBC a pull-out beginning next year was a possibility.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: berlin
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More fun in the offing, chums. This from Private Eye 28 Oct – 10 Nov 05:
“The British Cabinet now owes it to those it has sent to their deaths to remove the army from Iraq with expedition and dignity,” Simon Jenkins wrote in his Guardian column last Wednesday (19 October 05).
“Having just spent a week with the army. I have no doubt of its morale and its loyalty. I also have no doubt of its ruthlessness in joint memoir operations. In the not too distant future, Blair, Straw, Reid and Hoon are going to know the full meaning of ‘shock and awe’.”
What memoirs can he have in mind? Though he omitted to mention it, Jenkins travelled to Iraq with General Sir Mike Jackson, Chief of the General Staff, who is due to retire soon. Jackson has observed with interest the success of recent memoirs by General Sir Rupert Smith and Colonel Tim Collins, but reckons he could do far better. It’s a dead cert that he’ll sign a lucrative publishing deal as soon as he hangs up his beret. And, if Jenkins’s veiled hint is any guide, he will give full value for money.
“The British Cabinet now owes it to those it has sent to their deaths to remove the army from Iraq with expedition and dignity,” Simon Jenkins wrote in his Guardian column last Wednesday (19 October 05).
“Having just spent a week with the army. I have no doubt of its morale and its loyalty. I also have no doubt of its ruthlessness in joint memoir operations. In the not too distant future, Blair, Straw, Reid and Hoon are going to know the full meaning of ‘shock and awe’.”
What memoirs can he have in mind? Though he omitted to mention it, Jenkins travelled to Iraq with General Sir Mike Jackson, Chief of the General Staff, who is due to retire soon. Jackson has observed with interest the success of recent memoirs by General Sir Rupert Smith and Colonel Tim Collins, but reckons he could do far better. It’s a dead cert that he’ll sign a lucrative publishing deal as soon as he hangs up his beret. And, if Jenkins’s veiled hint is any guide, he will give full value for money.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is interesting is that Blair and his mates turn on Sir Christopher but when Blunket released his book which cast a less
than flattering light on some of his compatriots there was little mention of it!
Anyway Tony has that house to pay for and a high maintainance wife so I would expect the British Expeditionary
Forces to be carrying out a few more of his whims yet to fill the pages of that autobiography!
than flattering light on some of his compatriots there was little mention of it!
Anyway Tony has that house to pay for and a high maintainance wife so I would expect the British Expeditionary
Forces to be carrying out a few more of his whims yet to fill the pages of that autobiography!