Brown sticks his foot in his mouth

ivavoucher

JasonLVC wrote: »

Currently, they are pointed at a small house in Rochdale (apparently).:D

Thanks for that useful info but you totally missed the point.

The Conservative leader David Cameron insisted last week that Britain must spend almost £100bn to maintain its independent nuclear deterrent as "we don't know what is going to happen with Iran [and] we can't be certain of the future in China".

The foreign secretary, David Miliband, described the comment as showing "appalling immaturity". The Conservatives issued a statement claiming that Cameron was "demonstrating the extent of uncertainties in the world, not saying China is a threat to the UK". Yet the Conservative party's manifesto shows a somewhat contradictory position on China, urging "closer engagement" while "standing firm on human rights" and stopping aid.

lvader

tomterm8 wrote: »

'Changing priorities' by definition means deciding not to do something that you are doing now. Simple.

Not everything done by a company benefits customers or even the company. This is where Business Process Reengineering comes in. All the big companies do it at some point and many do it all the time with dedicated people that look at processes and look to cut cost and waste.

JasonLVC

Doctor_Gloom wrote: »

Cameron's membership of the Bullingdon club would suggest not.

Your post suggests you agree with me that Cameron's membership of this club does not mean he automatically assumes everyone is below him but your previous posts suggested the opposite.

Is it a pre-requiste of joining this 'club' to have a pathalogical hatred of all things working and middle class?

ILW

ILW wrote: »

Rubbish.
This country has 2 million plus unemployed (many young). What is the sense in paying them fortunes in benefits and then importing (mainly unskilled) people from abroad to fill the jobs? I must be a bigot for posing the question but am happy to be put straight if someone can give a logical answer rather than just resorting to name calling.

Can none of the Brown apologists on here explain?

JasonLVC

ivavoucher wrote: »

Thanks for that useful info but you totally missed the point.

I didn't miss the point, I slipped in some humour about where nuclear missles might be point and was suggesting it was on a certain Mrs Duffy.

I don't care much where our missiles are pointing, governments always need a bad guy to demonise and justify their existence and so it will ever be.

tomterm8

Loss of control over immigration is part of the deal the Tories struck in maastricht. Maybe you should be asking the Tory party why they agreed to it?

LauraW10

The Attack on Brown is Hypocritical

Brown's 'bigot' gaffe may be unpleasant, but those attacking him should look in the mirror.

But - and I imagine I'll get my fair share of hate mail for this - Brown had a point. This is what Duffy said about immigration: "All these eastern Europeans that are coming in - where are they flocking from?" Beyond the fact that she has answered her own question, this statement is profoundly problematic. This sort of talk about immigrants has become more and more acceptable, but we would do well to remind ourselves that it is not acceptable to use animal or geographic metaphors about immigrants. Talk of 'flocks' and 'swamps' serve to cement a sense of immigrants being 'the other'. They are not so different to us. They marry us, drink beer with us, work with us and live side by side with us.

Brown himself is actually as guilty as anyone of allowing the rhetoric of the far-right to corrupt the mainstream debate, by popularising that primitive and narrow-minded phrase 'British jobs for British workers'. But it is not tolerable for people to discuss immigrants in this way, and it reflects badly on the character of the person speaking.

But Brown's behaviour was undeserving of the criticism he has received for another, broader reason: he did what you do everyday.

We all have two faces: our social face and our private face. Nobody loves everyone in their office, or everyone in their extended family. We show our smiling social face in the day, ask people we are utterly uninterested in about their children, and then we go home and complain about how boring they are to our partner over dinner. That is normal human behaviour, not least of all in Britain, which is still more private than most other countries.

The attack that's currently underway won't fade quickly, and it will frame perception of his performance in Thursday's TV debate, which he desperately needs to win. But Brown isn't particularly out of order - you've done the same thing yourself. Glass houses and all that.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/elections/talking-elections-post/post/talking_election/25/comment-the-attack-on-brown-is-hypocritical.html

The fact is Brown had a point. The woman is a bigot......

.....Somebody talking sense at last:)

abaxas

LauraW10 wrote: »

The Attack on Brown is Hypocritical


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/elections/talking-elections-post/post/talking_election/25/comment-the-attack-on-brown-is-hypocritical.html

The fact is Brown had a point. The woman is a bigot......

.....Somebody talking sense at last:)

The problem is that poster is a racist. Ie they do not think of the current GB poulation in their argument.

People forget that we are a country and we get to choose who we let in or out.

ILW

tomterm8 wrote: »

Loss of control over immigration is part of the deal the Tories struck in maastricht. Maybe you should be asking the Tory party why they agreed to it?

I believe we had a 3 year opt out on open door to EU immigration after the Eastern European countries joined. Why did the present government choose not to take it as others did?

A._Badger

Anyone who can write a sentence like: " But it is not tolerable for people to discuss immigrants in this way, and it reflects badly on the character of the person speaking." really ought to look at the beam in his own eye.

In a free society (greatly reduced since 1997) people should be free to say whatever they want, however they want to. That is what freedom means.

Mercifully, a quick scan of the press today shows that whichever Mandelson puppet penned that sinister nonsense is in a tiny minority.