Blair could be finally on his way....

[Les Biehn]

I'm very sorry to hear that.

Thank you. It was a very upsetting moment.

 

[Grendel]

achieving a lot less than he promised

Surely that could be said of almost any politician, though?

 

[alan partridge]

What concerns me is LI`s use of the word ****. I mean is this a fair term to descibe a man who along with George Bush is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people.A man who has left a country with such a vacuum that bloodshed may continue unabated for the next twenty years leaving death and destruction on a scale we can only recoil in horror at.

 

[tedebear]

Just a mad rhetorical question from me....What would be the chances of getting anyone in power who was more concerned with what happens here at home than outside? Is it possible to reduce defence spending (get our lads and lasses out of Afghanistan etc.),stop agreeing with Bush etc., and use that money on stuff here?

 

[Dave the OAP]

...according to Sun 1st edition, reliable on Blair gossip if nothing else, although we will have to wait until May because the **** wants to hang on till his 10th year office party.

Labour might have some chance in '09 after all.

didnt have you down as a Sun reader

 

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

Spending at home is massively higher than spending on foreign policy and defence stuff.

While the issue of pulling troops out of Iraq/Afghanistan might be interesting if put before the electorate, previous opinion polls show that policies seen to be anti-defence are generally vote-losers.

 

[tedebear]

previous opinion polls show that policies seen to be anti-defence are generally vote-losers.

Really? I didn't know that - I assumed the other way to be honest. Strange then how everyone seems to moan about Blairs associations with Bush and the middle east - but I guess you're saying when it comes to the polls - they'll still vote for it to happen?

 

[Man of Harveys]

Surely that could be said of almost any politician, though?

As that other real hardcore total piss-on-his-grave Grade A **** Enoch Powell said, all political careers end in failure.

 

[Mr Burns]

Re: Re: Blair could be finally on his way....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by London Irish
...according to Sun 1st edition, reliable on Blair gossip if nothing else, although we will have to wait until May because the **** wants to hang on till his 10th year office party.

Labour might have some chance in '09 after all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by Dies Irae
didnt have you down as a Sun reader

This is proof that his account has been hacked. Either that or Aliens have taken over his body. (Not that, that would be a bad thing in his case ) This cannot be the London Irish we've all come to know and hate.
Someone call the police.
There are a-foul-a-doings going on at NSC

 

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

Really? I didn't know that - I assumed the other way to be honest. Strange then how everyone seems to moan about Blairs associations with Bush and the middle east - but I guess you're saying when it comes to the polls - they'll still vote for it to happen?

Sorry for getting technical here. Iraq/Afghanistan/the Middle East isn't as salient an issue as most people think -- it's just that the people who are bothered by it are really bothered, and make lots of noise.

People are far more likely to change their vote to a candidate or party who promises an improvement in taxation, the economy, schools, or hospitals. These are the big four. Similarly, a party whose manifesto says "we're going to take money away from the armed services" will probably lose votes.

 

[tedebear]

Sorry for getting technical here. Iraq/Afghanistan/the Middle East isn't as salient an issue as most people think -- it's just that the people who are bothered by it are really bothered, and make lots of noise.

People are far more likely to change their vote to a candidate or party who promises an improvement in taxation, the economy, schools, or hospitals. These are the big four. Similarly, a party whose manifesto says "we're going to take money away from the armed services" will probably lose votes.

No not at all - I prefer technical!!

Good point re Iraq et al - I hadn't thought about it that way...and tbh I thought more of our taxes were being used there than anywhere else. I guess the exposure it gets on the BBC, TV and in the press leads the humble girl on the street to think that way erroneously.

I guess I'm not saying take money away from the armed services per se (ie arming them, training them etc) - that would be political suicide, what I'm wondering is how much do we spend sending them all around the world to fight other peoples battles, instead of just employing them to protect our borders here at home...is it as much as I think it is?

Not sure I'm explaining myself well but hope you got it?

 

[Dave the OAP]

I think if that was the case Justine, the sight of Britsih Troops being offloaded from aircraft in coffins from Iraq and Afghanistan would lead to rioting in the streets.

I have not met one person who thinks we should be in Afghanistan ( we tried 150 years ago and failed miserably then, the Russians have just had a go, why get involved now?)

Blair recently came out and said that the deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq and Jordan were all part of the war on terror. well for a start, Iraq had never been linked to terrorist activity ( in fact, in hinesight keeping Saddam there with a lid on the maniacs was by far the preferable thing to do) Jordan it appears was nothing to do with Al Q but a lone nutter and afghanistan is a county that is ungovernable.

Let the saudi's or Lybians, or Chinese send their troops in , why should it always be us?

That will be Blairs legacy.....always trying to do what he sees as the right thing without thinking it through or consulting the people before he does it

 

[tedebear]

I think if that was the case Justine, the sight of Britsih Troops being offloaded from aircraft in coffins from Iraq and Afghanistan would lead to rioting in the streets.

Quite agree mate - but I'm not saying give them less money, I was supposing something different... would it save us much money to not have our troops there in the first place? So they weren't getting killed? So they were at home helping save our borders here from illegal immigrants and terrorists here etc? If/when Blair does leave would someone be gutsy enough to do this...

Pevensey is saying that there isn't that much money spent (in relation to whats spent at home) on these issues anyhow - so I'm probably talking out of my arse but its something I often wonder...

 

[Dave the OAP]

Sorry you have lost me.

Are you suggesting we have troops at the ports and airports to " stop illegal immigrants". Just how would we do that?

Illegal immegrants is a red herring that the press loves to bring out when there is any sort of crisis, be it NHS, housing, transport, wars........" NHS underfunded because illegal immegrants are having operations that could be given to good old tax payers..." That sort of thing.

The biggest problem we are facing , domestically as far as I see it, is the housing situation. With the huge divorce rate, single mothers, fathers etc all needing housing ( 2 houses instead of 1) and the fact that people want to remain by and large where family and friend sare, housing needs to be built. NIMBY's are making sure this is not happening. In fact, if you look at some of the estates that are springing up, houses are around the £300k mark.....That is not Blair's legacy, that is Thatchers!

 

[tedebear]

Sorry you have lost me.

Sorry I didn't think I explained myself that well....

I was just thinking if it would save us much money as a country to bring all these troops home? and to use them to protect our country from here? (stopping illegal immigrants was the first thing that came to my mind sorry, read that as protecting our borders from here) and then would there be any money left over from not having them away fighting other peoples wars to help our housing, NHS etc? Not blaming anyone in the past blair/thatcher etc just supposing if someone were brave enough to do it in the future?

Just general question really about the direction all our taxes are spent if you get my drift?

 

[Dave the OAP]

no...shut up and go and make mu a cup of tea






love you babe

 

[DIFFBROOK]

Actually spending is as follows:

Social Security - £151bn
Health - £96bn
Education - £73bn
Police etc - £32bn
Defence - £29bn

Now defence is not just about Iraq/Afghanistan, its about the equipment (ships/tanks etc) and payroll of soldiers. The actuall cost of troops being in those countries is probably hundreds of millions. Sounds like a lot of money, but when set against total Govt spendings its tiny.

So to pull troops out purely to save money is neither here nor there. The question is whether we should have a policy in having them there.

What really galls me is that Politicians putt troops in harms way, but dont give them the men, nor proper kit to do the job. I mean in this day and age, having troops drive around in Land Rovers when there are road side bombs going off is criminal. Especially when these same politiciams will insist on driving bullet proof/bomb proof ministerial cars on the streets of London.

 

[Dave the OAP]

.

What really galls me is that Politicians putt troops in harms way, but dont give them the men, nor proper kit to do the job. I mean in this day and age, having troops drive around in Land Rovers when there are road side bombs going off is criminal. Especially when these same politiciams will insist on driving bullet proof/bomb proof ministerial cars on the streets of London.

I'll vote for you...sod the Seagulls Party - you are the man

 

[chip]

What really galls me is that Politicians putt troops in harms way, but dont give them the men, nor proper kit to do the job. I mean in this day and age, having troops drive around in Land Rovers when there are road side bombs going off is criminal. Especially when these same politiciams will insist on driving bullet proof/bomb proof ministerial cars on the streets of London.

 

[tedebear]

Actually spending is as follows:

Social Security - £151bn
Health - £96bn
Education - £73bn
Police etc - £32bn
Defence - £29bn

Now defence is not just about Iraq/Afghanistan, its about the equipment (ships/tanks etc) and payroll of soldiers. The actuall cost of troops being in those countries is probably hundreds of millions. Sounds like a lot of money, but when set against total Govt spendings its tiny.

So to pull troops out purely to save money is neither here nor there. The question is whether we should have a policy in having them there.

Cool - exactly my question and it proved me wrong. I guess in my grand plan to save the NHS I'm going to have to find money elsewhere!!

Thanks for the information - very interesting....