[Tezcatlipoca]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...t-gordon-brown

Originally Posted by The Guardian - Comment is free

Sunny Hundal
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 20 April 2010 10.00 BST

Labour must prepare to boot Brown

If voters return a hung parliament, Labour must bite the bullet and get rid of Gordon Brown or face staying out of power



The Labour party should prepare to get rid of Gordon Brown. Not before the election, obviously – that would be ludicrous – but afterwards. Let me explain why.

The Lib Dem resurgence has made it much more likely that neither Labour nor the Conservatives will get a majority in parliament. A hung parliament is not only more likely to happen than not, but polls show that more people want one than not. Attempts by Brown or David Cameron to scare them away from the notion are futile since there is too much ingrained anger at a political system crying out for an overhaul.

Providing that Nick Clegg does not seriously smack-down both his opponents at subsequent debates, the most likely scenario is that the Conservatives end up with the most amount of seats, Labour second and the Lib Dems third.

But if neither party has a majority, it is perfectly legitimate for Labour to go into a coalition with the Lib Dems in order to form a government. The question is: can they? And more importantly: who would be the prime minister?

It is unlikely Gordon Brown could be if he comes second. Besides, his personal ratings are so low that it would be easy for the Lib Dems to refuse. It is also said frequently that Clegg cannot stand Brown and the two would find it very difficult to work together.

The Labour party then has a choice: it can either bite the bullet and get rid of an unpopular leader who just lost them the election, or it can hang on to him and stay out of power.

Nevertheless, there are problems for Labour.

(snip)

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

This is amusing. If for no other reason than watching a man trying to defend the indefensible.

I clicked that... but as soon as I saw Alan "NuttSack" Johnson on it, I had to quickly close the tab.

---------- Post added 21-04-2010 at 00:11 ---------- Previous post was 20-04-2010 at 22:38 ----------

Bloody tree-hugging Generals!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle7103196.ece

Originally Posted by Open Letter to The Times from a group of former senior military commanders

Money spent on Trident can’t go on troops

Four former senior military commanders ask if our nuclear deterrent is value for money


Edwin Bramall, David Ramsbotham, Hugh Beach, Patrick Cordingley


It is to be welcomed that all the leading political parties are committed to conducting a comprehensive strategic defence review after the election. This clearly must follow a detailed evaluation of the threats that this country faces today and in the future.

However, it is of deep concern that the question of the Trident replacement programme is at present excluded from this process. With an estimated lifetime cost of more than £80 billion, replacing Trident will be one of the most expensive weapons programmes this country has seen. Going ahead will clearly have long-term consequences for the military and the defence equipment budget that need to be carefully examined.

Given the present economic climate, in which the defence budget faces the prospect of worrying cuts, and that we have already an estimated hole in the defence equipment budget of some £35 billion, it is crucial that a review is fully costed and looks critically at all significant planned defence spending.

The debate has shifted significantly since the 2007 decision to proceed with replacing Trident. Internationally there is a growing consensus that rapid cuts in nuclear forces, starting with the US and Russia, but with the smaller nuclear states following, is the way to achieve international security.

(snip)

Should the review determine that there is still a need for a nuclear deterrent, a number of options may be more affordable than a like-for-like replacement of the Trident system, which has been described as a “Rolls-Royce” solution. The state of the public finances requires each of these options to be carefully evaluated, alongside like-for-like replacement and disarmament.

It is no longer good enough to skirt round the question of what actual military value an expensive nuclear deterrent provides to our services by labelling the decision a “political one”. This decision will have a direct impact on our overstretched Armed Forces. Allowing the military’s views to be excluded from this decision will have consequences both predictable and regrettable.

(snip)

Field Marshal Lord Bramall is a former Chief of the Defence Staff, General Lord Ramsbotham is a former Adjutant-General, General Sir Hugh Beach is a former Master-General of the Ordnance, Major-General Patrick Cordingley is a former Commander of the 7th Armoured Brigade