And if Gordon doesn't get the keys to No 10 ...

[Miki]

[quote] Or am I just cynical? [/quote]

No, just being a normal Tory and a Daily Wail reader. Just glad that

there are people about who will discuss politics in a rational manner

and not like a junior schoolboy.

[Patf]

Gay - I think you're right that it's not up to the PM to name his successor. Unless Blair resigns before the end of his term, or dies, then perhaps Brown would take over temporarily. Otherwise there has to be a new leadership election with candidates nominated then voted for by an electoral college. This is composed of TU reps, PLP reps and Constituency LP reps, a third of the vote each. So who knows who the new leader will be - could even be Peter Mandelson . Pat.

[Russethouse]

[quote user="Patf"]Gay - I think you're right that it's not up to the PM to name his successor. Unless Blair resigns before the end of his term, or dies, then perhaps Brown would take over temporarily. Otherwise there has to be a new leadership election with candidates nominated then voted for by an electoral college. This is composed of TU reps, PLP reps and Constituency LP reps, a third of the vote each. So who knows who the new leader will be - could even be Peter Mandelson . Pat.
[/quote]

Wouldn't it be John Prescott in caretaker position ?

[Miki]

To much reading of the papers angles on all this, they are using this just  to stir up trouble where none exists.

When a party wins an election they have a leader, not a PM. The country

goes to the  polls and vote in their constituency for the person

(party ?) they wish to lead their own area, at the final count,

the party with the most overall votes and who indeed have a majority,

will see their "leader" be made the PM.

If the leader steps down for any reason, be it in Maggies case

(somewhat different of course but the end product remained the same) or

as in Mr Blairs case, there is no need whatsoever or any good reason,

to go back to the country. Just as in the way MP's can walk the floor, it is at the next election time, when one can cast a vote to be rid of whoever, or to re-elect.

Mr Brown has long been known throughout the Labour Party to be the natural sucessor to Mr Blair when he stands down. (This is extremely

well documented !!) There is no certainty that all of the  Party

will accept him with the likelihood that others will offer up their

name. If no one else wants to put their name in the hat, Mr Brown will

take over the reigns. Time will tell but the vultures are

gathering, some who may well be mentioned have absolutely no chance at

all but simply like to try and raise their profile on the political

front. We have seen that very often in recent times with the many Tory leadership campaigns but  in reality, it is all to do with jockeying for a position in the new cabinet !!

[Dick Smith]

Well said mon vieux, the correct interpretation.

[Russethouse]

>>>Mr Brown has long been known throughout the Labour Party to be the natural successor to Mr Blair when he stands down. (This is extremely well documented !!) There is no certainty that all of the  Party will accept him with the likelihood that others will offer up their name. If no one else wants to put their name in the hat, Mr Brown will take over the reigns. Time will tell but the vultures are gathering, some who may well be mentioned have absolutely no chance at all but simply like to try and raise their profile on the political front. We have seen that very often in recent times with the many Tory leadership campaigns but  in reality, it is all to do with jockeying for a position in the new cabinet !!<<<

I agree with the process you outline however it is my understanding that the the deputy PM would, at least in the short term, step into the role of PM if Mr Blair left the Labour party under unforeseen circumstances (illness for example)

Isn't the debate we are having here because  the political 'mood' has changed and there are now doubts about Gordon Brown being the natural successor, I agree, in the past it was almost a forgone conclusion, but whether it is media lead or not, the feeling is that it is not now quite so certain to be Gordon that takes the Labour party into the next election.

While his performance as Chancellor can be seen as a strength, more and more of the electorate, including Labour party supporters, are having to pay inheritance tax, perhaps for the first time in their family and at the other end of the spectrum they see their sons and daughters having to pay stamp duty on even the most modest home...........

[Miki]

Of course in an immediate emergency, the normal line would mean the

deputy would temporarily take over the reigns but in this case, it will

not be as such.

It doesn't take a genius to know about the British media, it is as

everyone knows biased, on the right wing of politics (yes we know all

about new Labour so let's say the historic right then) They will

play this case for all its worth, the mood has changed and the reason

is simply that the change may happen at anytime in the next few months

or so, so the press have started in earnest now to try and stir it all

up.What has changed in Gordon Browns case ? It is still the same

succesful  Chancellor (or poor one, if your allegiance is

elsewhere)

 It will all become quite pathetic in the end, just like the euro

coin being held up, as the UK losing its sovereignty ! He may or may

not be the man for the job but all things being equal, there is no

successor that springs to mind for Labour. So while everyone in the

party either settles for Mr Brown or seeks out another chap to beat

Dave at the next election, then M Brown will be as good as anyone else,

unless of course anyone else knows someone lurking in the corridors !!!

Still that won't stop many saying well "what about this, what about

that"......the Tory press will search desperately for some bizarre

reason that Mr Brown should not become PM and stir it up on the basis

of total gorrocks...................getting rid of Mr Brown will not

sort out any tax that Labour folks have not liked being put upon them.

They will, more than likely, need a new government for that

 It is bizarre already really,  folks who have loved to boast

about the price of their houses, (and Oh boy, do we get someof them

here, although it is a little on the decline as houses are sticking

more than selling but....) now want the threshold raised to avoid any

tax issues, forgetting totally, how this government has levelled

out  the booms and bust and enabled their houses to gain quite

nicely thank you very much ! Still they will be out soon, or perhaps a

little later and  it is those who live in the UK (and yes, those

who vote by proxy) who have the fate of the next government, at the end

of a pencil tip.................

.

[Dick Smith]

Gone.

[Viv]

[quote user="Dick Smith"]
You are right that the army don't want big ceremonies with politicians saluting returning dead soldiers, and I would reiterate the point that if TB had done so, then muppets like Diva Star would be posting that he was milking the situation for publicity purposes. Politicians really can't win in these situations because people are always looking hysterically for some stick to beat them with.
[/quote]

 

Oh dear, Dick, wrong again !

A plane carrying the bodies of five British servicemen killed in Afghanistan this month has touched down on home soil.

The C-17 transport aircraft flew into RAF Brize Norton, Oxfordshire, as the situation in the country it left descends into one of the most violent periods in its history.

Private Craig O'Donnell, of the 5th Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, Lance Corporal Paul Muirhead, Lance Corporal Luke McCulloch and Fijian Ranger Anare Draiva, all from the 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment, and Corporal Mark Wright, of the 3rd Battalion Parachute Regiment, were all killed in attacks by insurgents.

Defence Secretary Des Browne [ politician], the Duke of Kent, Chief of the Defence Staff Air Chief Marshall Sir Jock Stirrup and Commander in Chief Land, General Sir Redmond Watt were at Brize Norton for the repatriation service along with members of the men's families.

Bearer parties for each flag-draped coffin were drawn from the units of each of the deceased.

I was pleased to see that Des Browne attended and pleasantly surprised. But TB would go up in my estimation if he could have been present and yes I am aware that he's out of the country.

No apology needed or expected!

 

 

[Russethouse]

Diva, With my mod hat off :

I find the use of this news item as a stick to beat with Dick Smith, utterly tasteless.

These are exceptional and tragic deaths, I believe there will be another ceremony in Scotland too - it was in the news last week.

Really !

[Viv]

Well, I find being referred to as 'dumb' and a 'muppet' pretty unpleasant too, but I didn't see you speaking out then either with Mod hat on or off.

I am fully aware that they are tragic and IMO uneccesary deaths.

But it was Dick that asked me to provide evidence that Maggie Thatcher greeted the Falklands fallen back to the UK, which I could not provide.

I did not think any one from this Government attended the repatriation of the soldiers from recent conflicts and neither did Dick  I was merely pointing out his and my error in the same tone that he sees fit to use with me.

I acknowledged that I thought it was only right and proper that someone from the Government should be there , but as this, again in my opinion, is Blair's war I thought the least he could do was to be there.

I have every sympathy for the families of the bereaved. I fully support our troops in the job that they are doing, but I do not support the Government and criticising the Government in my view does not undermine the difficult job that these brave men and women are doing and dying for.

 

 

 

[Deimos]

The difficulty comes in that whilst many discuss and express their opinions, others continually come out with "the truth". Not something that can be discussed or disagreed with but "what happened". Despite the fact that there is no reason whatsoever that they would "know" any more than anybody else, they do not express their "opinion" but tell others how "wrong they are".

Then, when somebody does present some facts they are criticized for doing so. Thus it becomes totally impossible to state an opinion based on facts as presenting the facts gets criticised (unless you are one of those few lucky ones who "knows the real truth").

As to the story Diva star quoted - I cannot see what is so tasteless about it. The events happened. They are happening every day. They will continue to happen for the foreseeable future. Any deaths anywhere in the world are tragic - in particular those of innocent civilians. If such stories are in such bad taste then maybe we should be objecting a long more about the wars the UK seems to be starting around the world rather than objecting to reports about the results of those wars. Remember that the British people were told that the British actions in Afghanistan would probably be completed "without a shot being fired" (not that I would suggest anybody was mislead").

Ian

[powerdesal]

[quote user="Diva Star"]

[quote user="Dick Smith"]

You are right

that the army don't want big ceremonies with politicians saluting

returning dead soldiers, and I would reiterate the point that if TB had

done so, then muppets like Diva Star would be posting that he was

milking the situation for publicity purposes. Politicians really can't

win in these situations because people are always looking hysterically

for some stick to beat them with.

[/quote]

 

Oh dear, Dick, wrong again !

A plane carrying the bodies of five British servicemen killed in Afghanistan this month has touched down on home soil.

The C-17 transport aircraft flew into RAF

Brize Norton, Oxfordshire, as the situation in the country it left

descends into one of the most violent periods in its history.

Private Craig O'Donnell, of the 5th

Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, Lance Corporal Paul

Muirhead, Lance Corporal Luke McCulloch and Fijian Ranger Anare Draiva,

all from the 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment, and Corporal

Mark Wright, of the 3rd Battalion Parachute Regiment, were all killed

in attacks by insurgents.

Defence Secretary Des Browne [ politician],

the Duke of Kent, Chief of the Defence Staff Air Chief Marshall Sir

Jock Stirrup and Commander in Chief Land, General Sir Redmond Watt were

at Brize Norton for the repatriation service along with members of the

men's families.

Bearer parties for each flag-draped coffin were drawn from the units of each of the deceased.

I was pleased to see that Des Browne attended

and pleasantly surprised. But TB would go up in my estimation if he

could have been present and yes I am aware that he's out of the country.

No apology needed or expected!

 

 

[/quote]

Diva, Dick, RH, Miki et al,

I believe Dick was in fact agreeing with my comment regarding

Politicians meeting incoming flights. I would certainly expect CDS and

C in C Land Forces to be present. I agree that TB should be present if

only to show he cares ( Does He???).

 

It is a fact that political arguments / discussions generate serious

disagreements and I seem to remember not agreeing with Dick in the past

on a political note, thats life. I believe (I may be wrong) that Dick

and I are on the opposite sides of the political spectrum ,

ditto Miki and I but each is entitled to his ( or Her) own opinion.

I do not support the present UK Govt, I do not like TB, I an not

however going to go into reasons, its my opinion and I am entitled to

it.

 

On the matter of politicians and the Military, I do not remember any of

my fellow servicemen being supporters of politicians in general and

labour politicians in particular. My comment on meeting flights was

based on that experience.

Politicians expect to be treated as something special, even at sad

occasions, but when you are one of the guys on the ground it really

gets up your nose, especially when you consider the overall conditions

of military service that those same politicians impose.

 Diva, I sympathise with your annoyance at being called a muppet,

my personal view is that it was an uncalled for insult. I further

disagree with Dick's comment that people looking for a 'stick' to beat

politicians with are 'hysterical'. Thats my politics showing and I do

not apologise for my political views. I do however respect the rights

of others to disagree with me. I suggest you 'rise above' the insult,

it was (possibly) not intended.

 

[Just Katie]

Gay, with regards to your "word" in Divas ear please could you explain what the rules of the game are here?  Two members have a healthy political disagreement.  They equally throw insults at each other (and very puerile they were too).

"Bet you only got a 2:2".

"Yeah and you are a muppet"

Nothing said, yet when Diva backs up her argument with fact, she gets called distasteful.

Sorry, but I really don't get it.  In fact, I think I will take up lessons in Bulgarian, should be quite a bit easier than sussing out the code of conduct around here. 

[Russethouse]

Frankly I think it would be better if everyone stuck to the points raised in the debate and did not deviate to insult in a personal way, those who do not agree with them.

Todays ceremony was to honour men who were killed in what looks like a tragic accident. If they had been killed in combat would it have been the same ? ( I'm asking - I don't know)

I believe that parents sometimes attend these sad ceremonies - if you were the parent or wife of a serviceman killed in action, would you really WANT Mr Blair there ?

 

[powerdesal]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

Frankly I think it would be better if

everyone stuck to the points raised in the debate and did not deviate

to insult in a personal way, those who do not agree with them.

Todays ceremony was to honour men who were killed in what looks like

a tragic accident. If they had been killed in combat would it have been

the same ? ( I'm asking - I don't know)

I believe that parents sometimes attend these sad ceremonies - if

you were the parent or wife of a serviceman killed in action, would you

really WANT Mr Blair there ?

 

[/quote]

RH,

I think you will find that the deaths of those soldiers in Diva's post

were most certainly in combat, even 'accidental' deaths in a war zone

are effectively combat-related.

Personnally I would not want TB anywhere near me, but, realistically,

he should attend ALL returns if only to acknowledge that he is

responsible for the presence of British forces in an un-winnable,

un-wanted and pointless war.

[Viv]

[quote user="powerdesal"]



Personnally I would not want TB anywhere near me, but, realistically, he should attend ALL returns if only to acknowledge that he is responsible for the presence of British forces in an un-winnable, un-wanted and pointless war.
[/quote]

That sums up my sentiments exactly.

[Deimos]

But I still cannot understand why quoting a newspaper story to back-up an argument is "utterly tasteless".

The criticism of Diva Star was for quoting the new story backing up a comment made (and to be honest it is Dick who is always asking for documented proof). Going off the original topic is hardly justification for calling a post "utterly tasteless". The original topic seems to have run its course and the discussion has moved on - and this is "The Lounge".

Ian

[Deimos]

As to Dick's comment about "Politicians really can't win in these situations" - there is a way that I would have hoped a politician should be smart enough to notice -Don't get into such situations to begin with. If you are not involved in a war then there will not be the "A plane carrying the bodies of five British servicemen killed in ..." type of situations. There are alternatives. Many (supposed) experts think that you really cannot fight terrorism with armies, tanks and bombs. Similarly, invading other countries that have no links with your "foe" serve no useful purpose but do start requiring politicians to be in the "lose-lose" situation of having to attend the funerals of servicemen killed for what reason (and there are loads of other reasons why one should not invade such countries).

Ian

[Miki]

[quote user="Deimos"]As to Dick's comment about "Politicians really

can't win in these situations" - there is a way that I would have hoped

a politician should be smart enough to notice -Don't get into such

situations to begin with. If you are not involved in a war then there

will not be the "A plane carrying the bodies of five British servicemen

killed in ..." type of situations. There are alternatives. Many

(supposed) experts think that you really cannot fight terrorism with

armies, tanks and bombs. Similarly, invading other countries that have

no links with your "foe" serve no useful purpose but do start requiring

politicians to be in the "lose-lose" situation of having to attend the

funerals of servicemen killed for what reason (and there are loads of

other reasons why one should not invade such countries).

Ian[/quote]

There will be many situations like this in the ensuing years, you can be sure of that. Your way of ensuring politicians can win is

downright daft. Regardless of where I or others on here might stand,

there are going to be several factions who will see it differently to

the politicians and to each other, thus the politicians still can't

win....simple really. You can't please all the people all the time

syndrome..............

Have no fear, politicians are always on to a lose-lose situation, ever

known a landslide that was 100% in favour of one party ? And if that

day ever arrived, by the following morning, you can bet your last Euro,

some supporters would already have started to disagree with their

party's politics !

If you don't counteract terrorism with armies, what are you supposed to

do then, to stop it happening again ? Invasions are debatable but

someone more in to fighting terrorism may like to tell me how it can be

done, without armed forces. I suspect the rest of the World would be

delighted to see it put into action I'm sure.

[Gastines]

Good advice it seems is to avoid discussions on politics/religion and perhaps history. I believe history is written by the victors?Over to D.S?

On wars and Iraq in particular , it would appear the best way to upset the populace is to destroy the infrastucture. Guaranteed to spoil everyones life and a bit over the top to remove one family from Tikrit. However it will keep a few American companies in profit for a few years.

On the Gordon Brown note, I have a feeling in my water, as they say, that in a few years  Harriet Harman might be the chosen one.

As regards French politics and policy, ignorance is no excuse but in my case it's bliss.

Regards.

[Deimos]

Miki asked: "If you don't counteract terrorism with armies, what are you supposed to do then, to stop it happening again ?"

The documentary I saw the other day had anti-terrorism experts commenting that it is far more effective to combat terrorism using intelligence then working with the relevant local authorities. What is singularly ineffective is invading countries that have no links with terrorism. GB (Bush not Brown) keeps wittering on about Sadam supporting al-Qaeda, etc. despite the fact that there was no intelligence to that effect and it has now been shown that, even at that time there was no intelligence to suggest that there were any such links (as shown by a recent US enquiry into Sadam and Osama/al-Qaeda links).

What seems to have been happening recently is that military action(s) by (or supported by) the West seem to have been hardening attitudes towards US/UK (plus others). This it seems is making recruitment much easier for the various terrorist organisations - in effect making their "job" much easier. If actions could be undertaken where the civilian populations did not suffer then military operations might be more successful. However, the degree of suffering caused to the general population of the "attacked" causes a lot of ill feeling (at least by those left alive).

Ian

[TWINKLE]

[quote user="LEO"]

If Gordon Brown becomes prime minister (god help us) for more than a year, I will take my trousers off in Burton's window for a fortnight

Leo Martin,

.St SEVER 14

 

[/quote]

Which branch?

[Miki]

To see it or to avoid it Twinkle  [;-)]