No Mandate Brown has been making all the right noises to George Bush during his taxpayer-funded jolly to the States.
The other day he said that the world owed the US a debt for what it has done during the illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.
He told NBC yesterday that “It is a war. We have had to fight a very big campaign”. The phrase “war on terror” has been used throught Operation “Steal Iraqi Oil” but it’s not actually a war is it? The dictionary defines war as “A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties”. But, despite the insistance of the American and British governments, there isn’t a vast, organised terrorist organisation for them to fight against. Millitants carry out terrorist attacks in Al’Qaeda’s name but then you or I could do the same, it doesn’t mean we’d be members of Al’Qaeda! Referring to this whole military campaign as a war just dignifies what were illegal invasions under the false pretext of international security. Invading Afghanistan was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 because the American government had to be seen to be doing something. The Taliban were an insular group – they had no interest in the outside world. Invading Iraq was an opportunity for Georgy Porgy to put right his dad’s failed attempt to take the country over in the first Gulf War. The “weapons of mass destruction” that were used as an excuse to invade Iraq without a UN resolution and against international law never turned up – the British government admitted to “sexing up” the intelligence to give the impression we were at risk from Iraq when we weren’t.
There was some suggestion that No Mandate Brown might start to pull troops out of Iraq, especially with him being a traditional Scotsman and therefore tight as a duck’s arse. No such luck though: “It’s a struggle for the soul of the 21st Century”. Traitor Bliar would have been proud of such a meaningless quote – what does it mean exactly? He doesn’t elaborate but goes on to say “We know a large number of people would, if they could, destroy life and put at risk our infrastructure and we have got to be vigilant”. But what’s the solution Gordo? Give Muslim groups a bigger role in running our country? Pour millions of pounds into Islamic teaching? Taking away the liberties and freedoms that the terrorists want to take off us? None of them are working so far are they?
Whilst British troops remain in Iraq and Afghanistan we are a target. We are at greater risk of terrorism since the “war on terror” than we were before it. It’s time to stop telling Georgy Porgy what he wants to hear and start telling him what he needs to hear – pull out of Afghanistan, pull out of Iraq and shut down the internment camp at Guantanamo Bay.
I never thought I would defend Gordon Brown, but to call a man “tight” who has lavished so much money on health, education, social services etc. seems inaccurate. He didn’t get any value for it, so you might criticise his judgement but (except with his own money) you can’t suggest he is tight. As the costs of keeping our troops in Iraq, both human and material, don’t fall on Mr Brown personally, I think it was unwise of you to assume that his personal parsimony might influence his view. Wasting the money and lives of others is simply what Labour does.
Great post Wonko — apart from the Scotophobia. Is that even a word? I don’t know. He likes to think he’s British – whatever that is…
Reminds me of those old TV ads from 1982 – “Gotta Lotta Bottle”. But Mr Brown has a gotta lotta brass neck, too.
“It’s a struggle for the soul of the 21st Century”
Good grief…
Charlie Marks said:
‘Great post Wonko — apart from the Scotophobia. Is that even a word? I don’t know … ‘
Yes, Charlie, it is a word, and it means ‘fear of darkness’, not a (perfectly understandable) detestation of Jocks.
“No Mandate Brown” – snigger, he’s the leader of the largest party in parliament that’s all the mandate he needs.
He has no mandate as Prime Minister and no mandate in England.
Brown does have a mandate. Technically, as at a general election people vote for their personal constituency representative, they don’t vote directley for the PM. Therefore, technically speaking Brown does have a mandate.
However, i understand that that isn’t how it works, as the leader is pivotal in deciding who people vote for, with their being very few personal votes for their MP.
However, that said, at the last election it was blatantly clear that Blair wouldn’t be PM for the entirety of Labours mandate. With the opposition saying a vote for Balir would be a vote for Brown anyway. People knew that Brown would become PM before the next election, to make sure people knew this Blair said he wouldn’t be PM for the entire session. Brown does therefore have a mandate in my mind, and in the mind of many.
Brown will call an election when he thinks he can win it, fair enough in my opinion. From what i have heard, Brown would rather hold it sooner than later in order to get a personal mandate as opposed to the mandate he inherited from and shared with Blair. But, if he thinks he will loose if he goes now then he will wait.
In my opinion he should call an election soonish. Brown should wait for the Bounce to end, then wait a bit to see what our suport is like. I’d say he should call it in 6-12 nmonths time. Plus, it would be preferable for him to have a concrete mandate.