Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius
There's that roll over and give in attitude i expected from the tree huggers and to think that came from the mouth of a man who wants to lead this country. Sorry i dont want someone that thinks we need to be put in our place.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius
thing is Maggy i have always said they would role over and give in even before this campaign against clegg and this just confirms it.
|
What "roll over & give in" attitude?
Still also curious as to why the Lib Dems are "tree huggers" (they're not the Green Party!
)... Is it simply because the party's name contains the word "Liberal"?
(I know that many people still for some reason consider the word "Liberal" to be A Bad Thing, or use it as an insult).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
I heard the Mail is considering adding Nick Clegg to its list of things that Could Cause Cancer ...
|
LOL!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
|
Awesome!
"IS NICK CLEGG TURNING BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY GAY?"
"WILL NICK CLEGG GIVE COMMON SENSE AND DECENCY CANCER?"
Oh, and "#nickcleggsfault" has been trending on Twitter today (top hashtag in the UK today, & the 2nd most used hashtag today worldwide)....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ewspaper-swipe
I love the Internet!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
Just as well it's 2010 really. I seriously doubt we want to start looking back to the past.
Things can only get better!
|
I remember the last time we heard that... Oh, how the joy soon turned to bitter disappointment...
----------------------------
Very interesting article: "
Will Murdoch lose Britain?"
----------------------------
Guardian "Comment is free" by Jonathan Freedland: "
Nick Clegg will survive Fleet Street broadside"
----------------------------
"Election 2010: heading for battle on defence spending"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Grauniad's Richard Norton-Taylor
While party leaders argue about where and how to save money, they have so far avoided one area where all agree huge cuts are inevitable.
They have an opportunity to make up for it during tomorrow's television debate devoted to defence and foreign affairs. With the single, albeit important, exception of Trident – and that's because the Liberal Democrats are opposed to an identical Conservative/Labour position – they have up to now shunned the issue.
(snip)
Yet as their potential political masters fill the public stage in their fight for power, behind the scenes senior military figures are already anxiously drawing up their own battle lines. In a series of remarkably frank briefings, they have been shamelessly promoting their branch of the armed forces at the expense of their two rivals. It is a critical time for all of them.
"From the defence point of view, we are at a crossroads," said one senior army source. He added: "We are structured and equipped for the 20th century. Going on as we are is simply not an option."
Many of Britain's military capabilities simply "lack relevance", he said, referring in particular to Trident, RAF bombers and plans to build carriers and buy US jets to fly from them.
They were "organised", as he put it, "for the least likely" occurrence.
(snip)
Three former generals today criticised the decision by Labour and the Conservatives to exclude the £80bn-plus Trident project from the forthcoming defence review. If the review determined there was still a need for a nuclear deterrent, a cheaper alternative should be considered, they said.
General Sir Richard Dannatt, former head of the army and now adviser to David Cameron, shared the other generals' view that Trident should not be replaced by a like-for-like system.
Hostility to Trident is not limited to former generals. Serving senior army officers are also deeply sceptical about its relevance today.
"How do you deter a non-state actor?" asked a senior army officer, referring to Trident nuclear ballistic missiles and the most likely foreseeable conflicts, namely those against insurgents or terrorists.
(snip)
|