This is the difference between Labour and the Tories
20 October 2011, 10:23 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
This is the difference between Labour and the Tories
Blair, Brown and his cronies got us involved in two wars one of which is viewed by many as being illegal. A decade later, hundreds of thousands of natives dead and our sons and daughters are still arriving home in body bags. All this because of sexed up dossiers and wmd that never existed.
Then what did they decide to do with the mad dog who bombed innocent men women and children out of the sky? Embrace him of course!!
What did David Cameron do when he felt the time was right? Along with Sarkozy he pushed for Nato to take action. A lot of criticism was targeted at him at the time but he held his resolve.
As a result of well thought out foreign policy, six months later the murderer of UK citizens is dead and regime change has happened. Not a single UK life lost, and whilst we have been involved we always had an exit policy and retained the moral high ground.
It doesn't matter what sort of chaos erupts there now it won't involve loss of life for our troops.
This is true leadership, with enough time Cameron might manage to undo the carnage that Bliar inflicted on our international image.
Well done David, keep it up
Then what did they decide to do with the mad dog who bombed innocent men women and children out of the sky? Embrace him of course!!
What did David Cameron do when he felt the time was right? Along with Sarkozy he pushed for Nato to take action. A lot of criticism was targeted at him at the time but he held his resolve.
As a result of well thought out foreign policy, six months later the murderer of UK citizens is dead and regime change has happened. Not a single UK life lost, and whilst we have been involved we always had an exit policy and retained the moral high ground.
It doesn't matter what sort of chaos erupts there now it won't involve loss of life for our troops.
This is true leadership, with enough time Cameron might manage to undo the carnage that Bliar inflicted on our international image.
Well done David, keep it up
Last edited by Dingdongler; 20 October 2011 at 10:28 PM.
20 October 2011, 10:44 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
May I add some sense, and quote:-
"Most people have accepted that for the next few years we are going to be worse off, but many are beginning to ask if the sacrifices are worth it.
Cameron seems to be more concerned about keeping the Lib Dems on board than looking after the 11 million who voted for him.
Ed Miliband may not have the answers, but he is on to something when he talks about the ‘squeezed middle’ — families on £25,000 to £50,000 a year who are struggling to make ends meet.
While Osborne has gone along with Lib Dem demands to raise the tax threshold for the low-paid, millions more on modest incomes have been dragged into the higher-rate band.
The aspiring middle classes, who should be the Conservative Party’s core constituency, are bearing the brunt of the age of austerity.
The Chancellor pleads poverty and says he can’t cut taxes, but the Government doles out £11 billion in foreign aid, most of which ends up in Swiss bank accounts.
That’s more than we spend on the police and the Armed Forces.
Servicemen and women, many of whom probably voted Tory, are receiving their P45s in the post and face a bleak financial future.
Police numbers, too, are being cut. Somehow Britain can still find a sultan’s ransom to give away to foreign regimes — some with their own nuclear weapons and space programmes.
Where’s the logic in that?
It smacks of conscience money, simply so that Dave can feel good about himself.
Elsewhere, small businesses, upon whom the recovery depends, are battered from pillar to post by suffocating regulation, bureaucratic interference and the refusal of publicly-owned banks to lend them money.
Most of the enterprise-sapping legislation emanates from Brussels.
But despite Dave promising to repatriate powers from Europe, he is dragging his feet.
The Commons is obliged to debate holding a referendum on withdrawing from the EU, after 100,000 people signed an online petition, but Cameron has already ruled it out.
In Manchester this week, he said: ‘I don’t want to leave the EU. People in rooms up and down Britain aren’t thinking: 'Gosh, if only we could have a treaty change in Europe.' ’
Actually, Dave, they are.
It may not dominate their every waking thought, but polls consistently show a clear majority for getting the hell out of this disastrous, ruinously expensive political experiment.
An even greater number want him to keep his election pledge to scrap the venal European Human Rights Act. But he says he can’t because Nick Clegg won’t let him.
This catch-all ‘the Lib Dems won’t allow it’ excuse is being used far too often and is beginning to grate.
The suspicion is that it has become a smokescreen for deliberate inaction"
It's pathetic Cameron!!
Grow some ***** like Blair, Brown and Darling ........... FFS!!
come the next election, millions of people who voted Tory last time — and plenty who didn’t — will ask themselves: what have the Conservatives done for us?
And the danger for Dave is that they’ll conclude: Not a lot.
"Most people have accepted that for the next few years we are going to be worse off, but many are beginning to ask if the sacrifices are worth it.
Cameron seems to be more concerned about keeping the Lib Dems on board than looking after the 11 million who voted for him.
Ed Miliband may not have the answers, but he is on to something when he talks about the ‘squeezed middle’ — families on £25,000 to £50,000 a year who are struggling to make ends meet.
While Osborne has gone along with Lib Dem demands to raise the tax threshold for the low-paid, millions more on modest incomes have been dragged into the higher-rate band.
The aspiring middle classes, who should be the Conservative Party’s core constituency, are bearing the brunt of the age of austerity.
The Chancellor pleads poverty and says he can’t cut taxes, but the Government doles out £11 billion in foreign aid, most of which ends up in Swiss bank accounts.
That’s more than we spend on the police and the Armed Forces.
Servicemen and women, many of whom probably voted Tory, are receiving their P45s in the post and face a bleak financial future.
Police numbers, too, are being cut. Somehow Britain can still find a sultan’s ransom to give away to foreign regimes — some with their own nuclear weapons and space programmes.
Where’s the logic in that?
It smacks of conscience money, simply so that Dave can feel good about himself.
Elsewhere, small businesses, upon whom the recovery depends, are battered from pillar to post by suffocating regulation, bureaucratic interference and the refusal of publicly-owned banks to lend them money.
Most of the enterprise-sapping legislation emanates from Brussels.
But despite Dave promising to repatriate powers from Europe, he is dragging his feet.
The Commons is obliged to debate holding a referendum on withdrawing from the EU, after 100,000 people signed an online petition, but Cameron has already ruled it out.
In Manchester this week, he said: ‘I don’t want to leave the EU. People in rooms up and down Britain aren’t thinking: 'Gosh, if only we could have a treaty change in Europe.' ’
Actually, Dave, they are.
It may not dominate their every waking thought, but polls consistently show a clear majority for getting the hell out of this disastrous, ruinously expensive political experiment.
An even greater number want him to keep his election pledge to scrap the venal European Human Rights Act. But he says he can’t because Nick Clegg won’t let him.
This catch-all ‘the Lib Dems won’t allow it’ excuse is being used far too often and is beginning to grate.
The suspicion is that it has become a smokescreen for deliberate inaction"
It's pathetic Cameron!!
Grow some ***** like Blair, Brown and Darling ........... FFS!!
come the next election, millions of people who voted Tory last time — and plenty who didn’t — will ask themselves: what have the Conservatives done for us?
And the danger for Dave is that they’ll conclude: Not a lot.
Last edited by pslewis; 20 October 2011 at 10:46 PM.
20 October 2011, 11:01 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edinburgh (ish)
Posts: 8,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair the Lybian uprising was an ideal situation for NATO to use it's airpower without getting boots on the ground, given that there were home grown "ground forces" in situ that could be supported. I would think the US and it's allies have learnt from earlier conflicts.
So a good result, and it was certainly good that the RAF were involved. Not sure there was any likelihood of us being involved in any other manner (we couldn't do so alone in any case).
So a good result, and it was certainly good that the RAF were involved. Not sure there was any likelihood of us being involved in any other manner (we couldn't do so alone in any case).
Trending Topics
20 October 2011, 11:10 PM
#8
I have to say that I found Gadaffi's final moments rather disturbing.
He may well have been a tyrant / murderer / etc but he really SHOULD have had been placed in front of a court.
The "mob rule" nature of his demise may well have saved a few 10's of £Millions in court hearings but it was still wrong.
He may well have been a tyrant / murderer / etc but he really SHOULD have had been placed in front of a court.
The "mob rule" nature of his demise may well have saved a few 10's of £Millions in court hearings but it was still wrong.
20 October 2011, 11:14 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say that I found Gadaffi's final moments rather disturbing.
He may well have been a tyrant / murderer / etc but he really SHOULD have had been placed in front of a court.
The "mob rule" nature of his demise may well have saved a few 10's of £Millions in court hearings but it was still wrong.
He may well have been a tyrant / murderer / etc but he really SHOULD have had been placed in front of a court.
The "mob rule" nature of his demise may well have saved a few 10's of £Millions in court hearings but it was still wrong.
20 October 2011, 11:17 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
He was tried, sentenced and executed on the back of a pick-up truck ..... all very correct and right.
We, in this country, could take a leaf from that book of law enforcement ....... for example:- go into Dale Farm, 10 years ago, drag the caravans out and jail the pickey scum ..... on the very same day that they refused to abide by our laws!!
We, in this country, could take a leaf from that book of law enforcement ....... for example:- go into Dale Farm, 10 years ago, drag the caravans out and jail the pickey scum ..... on the very same day that they refused to abide by our laws!!
20 October 2011, 11:26 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you need to remember Jod's is this is the same guy who only a few months ago had Tanks fire on civilians who were only demonstrating, they had alot of pay back to get and now they have it.
20 October 2011, 11:31 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edinburgh (ish)
Posts: 8,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup, what happened was both predictable and understandable. He had it coming.
20 October 2011, 11:46 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blair, Brown and his cronies got us involved in two wars one of which is viewed by many as being illegal. A decade later, hundreds of thousands of natives dead and our sons and daughters are still arriving home in body bags. All this because of sexed up dossiers and wmd that never existed.
Then what did they decide to do with the mad dog who bombed innocent men women and children out of the sky? Embrace him of course!!
What did David Cameron do when he felt the time was right? Along with Sarkozy he pushed for Nato to take action. A lot of criticism was targeted at him at the time but he held his resolve.
As a result of well thought out foreign policy, six months later the murderer of UK citizens is dead and regime change has happened. Not a single UK life lost, and whilst we have been involved we always had an exit policy and retained the moral high ground.
It doesn't matter what sort of chaos erupts there now it won't involve loss of life for our troops.
This is true leadership, with enough time Cameron might manage to undo the carnage that Bliar inflicted on our international image.
Well done David, keep it up
Then what did they decide to do with the mad dog who bombed innocent men women and children out of the sky? Embrace him of course!!
What did David Cameron do when he felt the time was right? Along with Sarkozy he pushed for Nato to take action. A lot of criticism was targeted at him at the time but he held his resolve.
As a result of well thought out foreign policy, six months later the murderer of UK citizens is dead and regime change has happened. Not a single UK life lost, and whilst we have been involved we always had an exit policy and retained the moral high ground.
It doesn't matter what sort of chaos erupts there now it won't involve loss of life for our troops.
This is true leadership, with enough time Cameron might manage to undo the carnage that Bliar inflicted on our international image.
Well done David, keep it up
Now lets look at the rest of the nonsense you posted!!!
The difference between the Tories and NL (as you put it) I can't find one because they both supported the same interventions and both supported getting the Mad Dog to give up his WMD programmes.
Blair believed in linberal intervention, and guess what, so does Cameron, and he's damned right too.
So try again please, what REALLY is the difference??
20 October 2011, 11:49 PM
#14
May I add some sense, and quote:-
"Most people have accepted that for the next few years we are going to be worse off, but many are beginning to ask if the sacrifices are worth it.
Cameron seems to be more concerned about keeping the Lib Dems on board than looking after the 11 million who voted for him.
Ed Miliband may not have the answers, but he is on to something when he talks about the ‘squeezed middle’ — families on £25,000 to £50,000 a year who are struggling to make ends meet.
While Osborne has gone along with Lib Dem demands to raise the tax threshold for the low-paid, millions more on modest incomes have been dragged into the higher-rate band.
The aspiring middle classes, who should be the Conservative Party’s core constituency, are bearing the brunt of the age of austerity.
The Chancellor pleads poverty and says he can’t cut taxes, but the Government doles out £11 billion in foreign aid, most of which ends up in Swiss bank accounts.
That’s more than we spend on the police and the Armed Forces.
Servicemen and women, many of whom probably voted Tory, are receiving their P45s in the post and face a bleak financial future.
Police numbers, too, are being cut. Somehow Britain can still find a sultan’s ransom to give away to foreign regimes — some with their own nuclear weapons and space programmes.
Where’s the logic in that?
It smacks of conscience money, simply so that Dave can feel good about himself.
Elsewhere, small businesses, upon whom the recovery depends, are battered from pillar to post by suffocating regulation, bureaucratic interference and the refusal of publicly-owned banks to lend them money.
Most of the enterprise-sapping legislation emanates from Brussels.
But despite Dave promising to repatriate powers from Europe, he is dragging his feet.
The Commons is obliged to debate holding a referendum on withdrawing from the EU, after 100,000 people signed an online petition, but Cameron has already ruled it out.
In Manchester this week, he said: ‘I don’t want to leave the EU. People in rooms up and down Britain aren’t thinking: 'Gosh, if only we could have a treaty change in Europe.' ’
Actually, Dave, they are.
It may not dominate their every waking thought, but polls consistently show a clear majority for getting the hell out of this disastrous, ruinously expensive political experiment.
An even greater number want him to keep his election pledge to scrap the venal European Human Rights Act. But he says he can’t because Nick Clegg won’t let him.
This catch-all ‘the Lib Dems won’t allow it’ excuse is being used far too often and is beginning to grate.
The suspicion is that it has become a smokescreen for deliberate inaction"
It's pathetic Cameron!!
Grow some ***** like Blair, Brown and Darling ........... FFS!!
come the next election, millions of people who voted Tory last time — and plenty who didn’t — will ask themselves: what have the Conservatives done for us?
And the danger for Dave is that they’ll conclude: Not a lot.
"Most people have accepted that for the next few years we are going to be worse off, but many are beginning to ask if the sacrifices are worth it.
Cameron seems to be more concerned about keeping the Lib Dems on board than looking after the 11 million who voted for him.
Ed Miliband may not have the answers, but he is on to something when he talks about the ‘squeezed middle’ — families on £25,000 to £50,000 a year who are struggling to make ends meet.
While Osborne has gone along with Lib Dem demands to raise the tax threshold for the low-paid, millions more on modest incomes have been dragged into the higher-rate band.
The aspiring middle classes, who should be the Conservative Party’s core constituency, are bearing the brunt of the age of austerity.
The Chancellor pleads poverty and says he can’t cut taxes, but the Government doles out £11 billion in foreign aid, most of which ends up in Swiss bank accounts.
That’s more than we spend on the police and the Armed Forces.
Servicemen and women, many of whom probably voted Tory, are receiving their P45s in the post and face a bleak financial future.
Police numbers, too, are being cut. Somehow Britain can still find a sultan’s ransom to give away to foreign regimes — some with their own nuclear weapons and space programmes.
Where’s the logic in that?
It smacks of conscience money, simply so that Dave can feel good about himself.
Elsewhere, small businesses, upon whom the recovery depends, are battered from pillar to post by suffocating regulation, bureaucratic interference and the refusal of publicly-owned banks to lend them money.
Most of the enterprise-sapping legislation emanates from Brussels.
But despite Dave promising to repatriate powers from Europe, he is dragging his feet.
The Commons is obliged to debate holding a referendum on withdrawing from the EU, after 100,000 people signed an online petition, but Cameron has already ruled it out.
In Manchester this week, he said: ‘I don’t want to leave the EU. People in rooms up and down Britain aren’t thinking: 'Gosh, if only we could have a treaty change in Europe.' ’
Actually, Dave, they are.
It may not dominate their every waking thought, but polls consistently show a clear majority for getting the hell out of this disastrous, ruinously expensive political experiment.
An even greater number want him to keep his election pledge to scrap the venal European Human Rights Act. But he says he can’t because Nick Clegg won’t let him.
This catch-all ‘the Lib Dems won’t allow it’ excuse is being used far too often and is beginning to grate.
The suspicion is that it has become a smokescreen for deliberate inaction"
It's pathetic Cameron!!
Grow some ***** like Blair, Brown and Darling ........... FFS!!
come the next election, millions of people who voted Tory last time — and plenty who didn’t — will ask themselves: what have the Conservatives done for us?
And the danger for Dave is that they’ll conclude: Not a lot.
21 October 2011, 09:20 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Cardiff. Wales
Posts: 11,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21 October 2011, 09:51 AM
#18
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All yesterday proves is that just as Michael Mansell said no foreign leader out of step with the US is safe, especially when oil is involved.
As for the OP what an absolute load of blinkered bollocks! Cameron is no better or worse than Blair.
As for the OP what an absolute load of blinkered bollocks! Cameron is no better or worse than Blair.
21 October 2011, 02:46 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that Pete's point about Cameron bowing to the Lib Dems in order to stay in power is a good one. He has not got the guts to call their bluff and govern the country in the way that the Conservatives really feel is right.
If he had any kind of real leadership in him he would have told them where to go and braved another general election which he would probably have won outright.
As it is, it has become obvious that it is true that he admires Billy Liar's methods and hankers after achieving a similar election record. Trouble is, people are beginning to see through him and his broken promises have lost him a lot of support.
I personally now cannot help regarding him as yet another two faced politician who is overly concerned for his own future career which is far more important to him than the fate of this country and the people.
Les
If he had any kind of real leadership in him he would have told them where to go and braved another general election which he would probably have won outright.
As it is, it has become obvious that it is true that he admires Billy Liar's methods and hankers after achieving a similar election record. Trouble is, people are beginning to see through him and his broken promises have lost him a lot of support.
I personally now cannot help regarding him as yet another two faced politician who is overly concerned for his own future career which is far more important to him than the fate of this country and the people.
Les
21 October 2011, 02:48 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that Pete's point about Cameron bowing to the Lib Dems in order to stay in power is a good one. He has not got the guts to call their bluff and govern the country in the way that the Conservatives really feel is right.
If he had any kind of real leadership in him he would have told them where to go and braved another general election which he would probably have won outright.
As it is, it has become obvious that it is true that he admires Billy Liar's methods and hankers after achieving a similar election record. Trouble is, people are beginning to see through him and his broken promises have lost him a lot of support.
I personally now cannot help regarding him as yet another two faced politician who is overly concerned for his own future career which is far more important to him than the fate of this country and the people.
Les
If he had any kind of real leadership in him he would have told them where to go and braved another general election which he would probably have won outright.
As it is, it has become obvious that it is true that he admires Billy Liar's methods and hankers after achieving a similar election record. Trouble is, people are beginning to see through him and his broken promises have lost him a lot of support.
I personally now cannot help regarding him as yet another two faced politician who is overly concerned for his own future career which is far more important to him than the fate of this country and the people.
Les
21 October 2011, 04:17 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blair, Brown and his cronies got us involved in two wars one of which is viewed by many as being illegal. A decade later, hundreds of thousands of natives dead and our sons and daughters are still arriving home in body bags. All this because of sexed up dossiers and wmd that never existed.
Then what did they decide to do with the mad dog who bombed innocent men women and children out of the sky? Embrace him of course!!
What did David Cameron do when he felt the time was right? Along with Sarkozy he pushed for Nato to take action. A lot of criticism was targeted at him at the time but he held his resolve.
As a result of well thought out foreign policy, six months later the murderer of UK citizens is dead and regime change has happened. Not a single UK life lost, and whilst we have been involved we always had an exit policy and retained the moral high ground.
It doesn't matter what sort of chaos erupts there now it won't involve loss of life for our troops.
This is true leadership, with enough time Cameron might manage to undo the carnage that Bliar inflicted on our international image.
Well done David, keep it up
Then what did they decide to do with the mad dog who bombed innocent men women and children out of the sky? Embrace him of course!!
What did David Cameron do when he felt the time was right? Along with Sarkozy he pushed for Nato to take action. A lot of criticism was targeted at him at the time but he held his resolve.
As a result of well thought out foreign policy, six months later the murderer of UK citizens is dead and regime change has happened. Not a single UK life lost, and whilst we have been involved we always had an exit policy and retained the moral high ground.
It doesn't matter what sort of chaos erupts there now it won't involve loss of life for our troops.
This is true leadership, with enough time Cameron might manage to undo the carnage that Bliar inflicted on our international image.
Well done David, keep it up
21 October 2011, 07:02 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Really?? Tell that to the relatives of all our servicemen still being brought home in body bags
The reason the Tories agreed with the war at the time was because they like the rest of the country were lied to by you know who.
The difference is a well measured foreign policy that allows us to take leadership and have a role on the world stage without coming across as having imperialistic intentions.
Bliar lied to the country and took us into what is an illegal war and what is close to an occupation. As a result our country's image will be tainted for a generation. He was obsessed by being an international statesmen and couldn't have got it more wrong.
Cameron on the other hand took decisive action, led from the front and waited until Nato gave support so everything was in line with international law. As a result six months later without a single British boot being placed on Libyan soil Gaddafi is gone.
Can you really not see the difference between a lying criminal US poodle and a well intentioned and effective international statesmen?
21 October 2011, 07:44 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really?? Tell that to the relatives of all our servicemen still being brought home in body bags
The reason the Tories agreed with the war at the time was because they like the rest of the country were lied to by you know who.
The difference is a well measured foreign policy that allows us to take leadership and have a role on the world stage without coming across as having imperialistic intentions.
Bliar lied to the country and took us into what is an illegal war and what is close to an occupation. As a result our country's image will be tainted for a generation. He was obsessed by being an international statesmen and couldn't have got it more wrong.
Cameron on the other hand took decisive action, led from the front and waited until Nato gave support so everything was in line with international law. As a result six months later without a single British boot being placed on Libyan soil Gaddafi is gone.
Can you really not see the difference between a lying criminal US poodle and a well intentioned and effective international statesmen?
The reason the Tories agreed with the war at the time was because they like the rest of the country were lied to by you know who.
The difference is a well measured foreign policy that allows us to take leadership and have a role on the world stage without coming across as having imperialistic intentions.
Bliar lied to the country and took us into what is an illegal war and what is close to an occupation. As a result our country's image will be tainted for a generation. He was obsessed by being an international statesmen and couldn't have got it more wrong.
Cameron on the other hand took decisive action, led from the front and waited until Nato gave support so everything was in line with international law. As a result six months later without a single British boot being placed on Libyan soil Gaddafi is gone.
Can you really not see the difference between a lying criminal US poodle and a well intentioned and effective international statesmen?
He tabled a motion at the UN to protect Libyan civilians and then went after regime change. Lying and illegal just like Blair. The only difference is the scale I grant you!
As for your well measured foreign policy comment ... LOL!
The only thing I can think is you must be a died in the wool Tory that would vote for a monkey if it had a blue rosette on it. In fact your posts are so biased I am still actually am not sure whether you are just taking the p1ss!!
21 October 2011, 07:50 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Swansea
Posts: 4,008
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I add some sense, and quote:-
"Most people have accepted that for the next few years we are going to be worse off, but many are beginning to ask if the sacrifices are worth it.
Cameron seems to be more concerned about keeping the Lib Dems on board than looking after the 11 million who voted for him.
Ed Miliband may not have the answers, but he is on to something when he talks about the ‘squeezed middle’ — families on £25,000 to £50,000 a year who are struggling to make ends meet.
While Osborne has gone along with Lib Dem demands to raise the tax threshold for the low-paid, millions more on modest incomes have been dragged into the higher-rate band.
The aspiring middle classes, who should be the Conservative Party’s core constituency, are bearing the brunt of the age of austerity.
The Chancellor pleads poverty and says he can’t cut taxes, but the Government doles out £11 billion in foreign aid, most of which ends up in Swiss bank accounts.
That’s more than we spend on the police and the Armed Forces.
Servicemen and women, many of whom probably voted Tory, are receiving their P45s in the post and face a bleak financial future.
Police numbers, too, are being cut. Somehow Britain can still find a sultan’s ransom to give away to foreign regimes — some with their own nuclear weapons and space programmes.
Where’s the logic in that?
It smacks of conscience money, simply so that Dave can feel good about himself.
Elsewhere, small businesses, upon whom the recovery depends, are battered from pillar to post by suffocating regulation, bureaucratic interference and the refusal of publicly-owned banks to lend them money.
Most of the enterprise-sapping legislation emanates from Brussels.
But despite Dave promising to repatriate powers from Europe, he is dragging his feet.
The Commons is obliged to debate holding a referendum on withdrawing from the EU, after 100,000 people signed an online petition, but Cameron has already ruled it out.
In Manchester this week, he said: ‘I don’t want to leave the EU. People in rooms up and down Britain aren’t thinking: 'Gosh, if only we could have a treaty change in Europe.' ’
Actually, Dave, they are.
It may not dominate their every waking thought, but polls consistently show a clear majority for getting the hell out of this disastrous, ruinously expensive political experiment.
An even greater number want him to keep his election pledge to scrap the venal European Human Rights Act. But he says he can’t because Nick Clegg won’t let him.
This catch-all ‘the Lib Dems won’t allow it’ excuse is being used far too often and is beginning to grate.
The suspicion is that it has become a smokescreen for deliberate inaction"
It's pathetic Cameron!!
Grow some ***** like Blair, Brown and Darling ........... FFS!!
come the next election, millions of people who voted Tory last time — and plenty who didn’t — will ask themselves: what have the Conservatives done for us?
And the danger for Dave is that they’ll conclude: Not a lot.
"Most people have accepted that for the next few years we are going to be worse off, but many are beginning to ask if the sacrifices are worth it.
Cameron seems to be more concerned about keeping the Lib Dems on board than looking after the 11 million who voted for him.
Ed Miliband may not have the answers, but he is on to something when he talks about the ‘squeezed middle’ — families on £25,000 to £50,000 a year who are struggling to make ends meet.
While Osborne has gone along with Lib Dem demands to raise the tax threshold for the low-paid, millions more on modest incomes have been dragged into the higher-rate band.
The aspiring middle classes, who should be the Conservative Party’s core constituency, are bearing the brunt of the age of austerity.
The Chancellor pleads poverty and says he can’t cut taxes, but the Government doles out £11 billion in foreign aid, most of which ends up in Swiss bank accounts.
That’s more than we spend on the police and the Armed Forces.
Servicemen and women, many of whom probably voted Tory, are receiving their P45s in the post and face a bleak financial future.
Police numbers, too, are being cut. Somehow Britain can still find a sultan’s ransom to give away to foreign regimes — some with their own nuclear weapons and space programmes.
Where’s the logic in that?
It smacks of conscience money, simply so that Dave can feel good about himself.
Elsewhere, small businesses, upon whom the recovery depends, are battered from pillar to post by suffocating regulation, bureaucratic interference and the refusal of publicly-owned banks to lend them money.
Most of the enterprise-sapping legislation emanates from Brussels.
But despite Dave promising to repatriate powers from Europe, he is dragging his feet.
The Commons is obliged to debate holding a referendum on withdrawing from the EU, after 100,000 people signed an online petition, but Cameron has already ruled it out.
In Manchester this week, he said: ‘I don’t want to leave the EU. People in rooms up and down Britain aren’t thinking: 'Gosh, if only we could have a treaty change in Europe.' ’
Actually, Dave, they are.
It may not dominate their every waking thought, but polls consistently show a clear majority for getting the hell out of this disastrous, ruinously expensive political experiment.
An even greater number want him to keep his election pledge to scrap the venal European Human Rights Act. But he says he can’t because Nick Clegg won’t let him.
This catch-all ‘the Lib Dems won’t allow it’ excuse is being used far too often and is beginning to grate.
The suspicion is that it has become a smokescreen for deliberate inaction"
It's pathetic Cameron!!
Grow some ***** like Blair, Brown and Darling ........... FFS!!
come the next election, millions of people who voted Tory last time — and plenty who didn’t — will ask themselves: what have the Conservatives done for us?
And the danger for Dave is that they’ll conclude: Not a lot.
21 October 2011, 08:32 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really?? Tell that to the relatives of all our servicemen still being brought home in body bags
The reason the Tories agreed with the war at the time was because they like the rest of the country were lied to by you know who.
The difference is a well measured foreign policy that allows us to take leadership and have a role on the world stage without coming across as having imperialistic intentions.
Bliar lied to the country and took us into what is an illegal war and what is close to an occupation. As a result our country's image will be tainted for a generation. He was obsessed by being an international statesmen and couldn't have got it more wrong.
Cameron on the other hand took decisive action, led from the front and waited until Nato gave support so everything was in line with international law. As a result six months later without a single British boot being placed on Libyan soil Gaddafi is gone.
Can you really not see the difference between a lying criminal US poodle and a well intentioned and effective international statesmen?
The reason the Tories agreed with the war at the time was because they like the rest of the country were lied to by you know who.
The difference is a well measured foreign policy that allows us to take leadership and have a role on the world stage without coming across as having imperialistic intentions.
Bliar lied to the country and took us into what is an illegal war and what is close to an occupation. As a result our country's image will be tainted for a generation. He was obsessed by being an international statesmen and couldn't have got it more wrong.
Cameron on the other hand took decisive action, led from the front and waited until Nato gave support so everything was in line with international law. As a result six months later without a single British boot being placed on Libyan soil Gaddafi is gone.
Can you really not see the difference between a lying criminal US poodle and a well intentioned and effective international statesmen?
Quite how you can post on the subject of foreign interventions without even mentioning Kosova and Sierra Leone tells me all I need to know about your either a. lack of understanding of recent events or b. your completely blinkered outlook.
You should compare Libya to Kosovo, that's the real comparison. It was the invention there and in Africa that convinced Blair that we could intervene and turnaround potentially disasterous humanitarian situations.
Maybe Cambo will also get a taste for this kind of intervention!!
BTW you mention how Cameron got NATO legitimacy for Libya, again you've just been selective, NATO where also engaged from the beginning in Kosovo and AFGANISTAN.
If you are going to make comparisons at least make them accurate and valid.
But don't let the facts or logic get in the way, nothing better than a good old fashioned baseless rant!
Last edited by Martin2005; 21 October 2011 at 08:34 PM.
21 October 2011, 08:34 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
You were doing fine until you got to Cameron.
He tabled a motion at the UN to protect Libyan civilians and then went after regime change. Lying and illegal just like Blair. The only difference is the scale I grant you!
As for your well measured foreign policy comment ... LOL!
The only thing I can think is you must be a died in the wool Tory that would vote for a monkey if it had a blue rosette on it. In fact your posts are so biased I am still actually am not sure whether you are just taking the p1ss!!
He tabled a motion at the UN to protect Libyan civilians and then went after regime change. Lying and illegal just like Blair. The only difference is the scale I grant you!
As for your well measured foreign policy comment ... LOL!
The only thing I can think is you must be a died in the wool Tory that would vote for a monkey if it had a blue rosette on it. In fact your posts are so biased I am still actually am not sure whether you are just taking the p1ss!!
Tell me what Cameron lied about and who has claimed the Nato action to be illegal.
21 October 2011, 08:40 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
You are missing the obvious parallel between Blair and Cameron.
Quite how you can post on the subject of foreign interventions without even mentioning Kosova and Sierra Leone tells me all I need to know about your either a. lack of understanding of recent events or b. your completely blinkered outlook.
You should compare Libya to Kosovo, that's the real comparison. It was the invention there and in Africa that convinced Blair that we could intervene and turnaround potentially disasterous humanitarian situations.
Maybe Cambo will also get a taste for this kind of intervention!!
BTW you mention how Cameron got NATO legitimacy for Libya, again you've just been selective, NATO where also engaged from the beginning in Kosovo and AFGANISTAN.
If you are going to make comparisons at least make them accurate and valid.
But don't let the facts or logic get in the way, nothing better than a good old fashioned baseless rant!
Quite how you can post on the subject of foreign interventions without even mentioning Kosova and Sierra Leone tells me all I need to know about your either a. lack of understanding of recent events or b. your completely blinkered outlook.
You should compare Libya to Kosovo, that's the real comparison. It was the invention there and in Africa that convinced Blair that we could intervene and turnaround potentially disasterous humanitarian situations.
Maybe Cambo will also get a taste for this kind of intervention!!
BTW you mention how Cameron got NATO legitimacy for Libya, again you've just been selective, NATO where also engaged from the beginning in Kosovo and AFGANISTAN.
If you are going to make comparisons at least make them accurate and valid.
But don't let the facts or logic get in the way, nothing better than a good old fashioned baseless rant!
1) I'm talking about Iraq
2) You say perhaps 'Cambo' will get a taste for such action? So your justification for Bliar's actions are that Cambo MIGHT turn out to be as bad in the future? What sort of spurious argument is that??
3) And what sort of humanitarian disaster was Blair trying to solve in Iraq? SH was not slaughtering his own people, this was all about WMD. Remember those???
21 October 2011, 08:47 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) I'm talking about Iraq
2) You say perhaps 'Cambo' will get a taste for such action? So your justification for Bliar's actions are that Cambo MIGHT turn out to be as bad in the future? What sort of spurious argument is that??
3) And what sort of humanitarian disaster was Blair trying to solve in Iraq? SH was not slaughtering his own people, this was all about WMD. Remember those???
2) You say perhaps 'Cambo' will get a taste for such action? So your justification for Bliar's actions are that Cambo MIGHT turn out to be as bad in the future? What sort of spurious argument is that??
3) And what sort of humanitarian disaster was Blair trying to solve in Iraq? SH was not slaughtering his own people, this was all about WMD. Remember those???
Last edited by Martin2005; 21 October 2011 at 08:53 PM.
21 October 2011, 08:52 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) I'm talking about Iraq
2) You say perhaps 'Cambo' will get a taste for such action? So your justification for Bliar's actions are that Cambo MIGHT turn out to be as bad in the future? What sort of spurious argument is that??
3) And what sort of humanitarian disaster was Blair trying to solve in Iraq? SH was not slaughtering his own people, this was all about WMD. Remember those???
2) You say perhaps 'Cambo' will get a taste for such action? So your justification for Bliar's actions are that Cambo MIGHT turn out to be as bad in the future? What sort of spurious argument is that??
3) And what sort of humanitarian disaster was Blair trying to solve in Iraq? SH was not slaughtering his own people, this was all about WMD. Remember those???
'Blair, Brown and his cronies got us involved in two wars one of which is viewed by many as being illegal. A decade later, hundreds of thousands of natives dead and our sons and daughters are still arriving home in body bags. All this because of sexed up dossiers and wmd that never existed.'
Which war are you talking about, you seem to be deliberately conflating Afganistan and Iraq?
21 October 2011, 09:09 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Well the argument is this
1) Bliar; took us into two wars, one of which many believe to be illegal (including the govt's own lawyers until they were nobbled) based on 'sexed up dossiers'
As a result hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's are dead and our sons and daughters are still being blown to smithereens in the desert. We have also become a prime target for terrorists as a result of these actions.
Our national image in tatters because Bliar wages war and then goes to work for companies that benefit financially from Iraqi oil.
2) Cameron; takes the lead to push Nato for action in Libya. Prevents a slaughter of Libyan people and helps in ridding the world of Gadaffi, the guy who is implicated in the killing of UK citizens. The same person that Bliar is pictured cuddling in a tent to further oil deals for UK companies.
See the difference yet or not??
1) Bliar; took us into two wars, one of which many believe to be illegal (including the govt's own lawyers until they were nobbled) based on 'sexed up dossiers'
As a result hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's are dead and our sons and daughters are still being blown to smithereens in the desert. We have also become a prime target for terrorists as a result of these actions.
Our national image in tatters because Bliar wages war and then goes to work for companies that benefit financially from Iraqi oil.
2) Cameron; takes the lead to push Nato for action in Libya. Prevents a slaughter of Libyan people and helps in ridding the world of Gadaffi, the guy who is implicated in the killing of UK citizens. The same person that Bliar is pictured cuddling in a tent to further oil deals for UK companies.
See the difference yet or not??