bungle Posted 30 April, 2009 Posted 30 April, 2009 Yesterday was the first time a government has been defeated in an opposition day motion since Callaghan in 1978. A very good cause too, the treatment of gurkas has been nothing short of awful. http://www.politics.co.uk/news/foreign-policy/analysis-clegg-s-victory-$1291720.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8023882.stm What chance another defeat today on expenses?
Hatch Posted 30 April, 2009 Posted 30 April, 2009 for the life of me , I can not see why the Goverment has taken this stance. Just shows how out of touch they are. With everything.
St Landrew Posted 30 April, 2009 Posted 30 April, 2009 For the life of me, I can not see why the Goverment has taken this stance... My thoughts exactly.
jeff leopard Posted 30 April, 2009 Posted 30 April, 2009 one of their stipulations was that they must have served 20 years to qualify, in full knowledge that the vast majority serve 15 years. Scheming w@nkers. the last thing I want to see is Cameron become PM, but saying that, watching Brown crumble like a sand castle in front of the nation's eyes is lol-tastic! He's become a toothless joke. Bye. I've been watching The Thick of It recently and can clearly imagine the phucked up mayhem which must be going on behind the scenes right now.
Al de Man Posted 30 April, 2009 Posted 30 April, 2009 The Lib Dems said 28 Labour MPs had voted for their motion - although that is thought to include one Labour MP who voted both for and against the motion. How does that work? :confused:
Shandy_Top_89 Posted 30 April, 2009 Posted 30 April, 2009 I did laugh when i read that Cameron went outside to speak afterwards to flame browns stance, when it was a lib dem motion that made the difference, bandwagon hopping much? Although saying that Brown got exactly what he deserved, these rules were shocking.
bungle Posted 30 April, 2009 Author Posted 30 April, 2009 How does that work? :confused: Not sure why said MP went through both lobbies, and had the vote been decided by a very small number I'm sure they would have had a recount. But just as the vast majority of votes take place via "shouting" in the chamber rather than the division lobby, when the final result isn't in question they won't have another vote.
bungle Posted 30 April, 2009 Author Posted 30 April, 2009 I did laugh when i read that Cameron went outside to speak afterwards to flame browns stance, when it was a lib dem motion that made the difference, bandwagon hopping much? Although saying that Brown got exactly what he deserved, these rules were shocking. Don't mind Cameron getting involved, because he has made sure his party supported the motion, but the best bit was when an interviewer asked Nick Clegg a question by name, and Cameron tried to answer it. Silly git. Anyway, who says the third party can't do anything!
miserableoldgit Posted 30 April, 2009 Posted 30 April, 2009 Two things. Firstly, it is a complete and utter disgrace the way this country has treated the Gurkhas for many years, not just under the Labour Government. These people have fought loyally for this country for many, many years and we have not returned their loyalty. It is about time this situation was rectified. Secondly, I am not a political animal (I am your architypal floating voter) but I do find that Cameron, along with other Conservative leaders recently have turned jumping onto any bandwagon into an art form. This aspect of their campaigning undermines any confidence that they are any more capable of properly running this country any better than the current lot. IMHO of course.
jeff leopard Posted 30 April, 2009 Posted 30 April, 2009 Secondly, I am not a political animal (I am your architypal floating voter) I was LibDem through and through, but since they got rid of Kennedy they've just fallen to pieces. Now they've decided their best bet is rebuild themselves as a watered down version of the Tories, who are a forth-rate imitation of the first-term New Labour. The decision to remove Kennedy as leader seems all the more ridiculous now that Brown's drinking habit has come to light. This in itself is further proof of Brown's own dramatic decline. Not so long ago it was one of the most viciously defended secrets in politics, now it seems anyone can make casual reference to it and not have to worry about any retaliation. The only way I'll consider voting again is if they introduce a 'none of the above' option of ballot papers. The main parties can all go phuq themselves. Phew. For a minute there I went off topic. I completely agree with Miserable…, if someone can serve in our armed forces they can live in our country. That’s a fair deal.
Mole Posted 30 April, 2009 Posted 30 April, 2009 The treatment of the Gurkhas is disgusting. We let everyone else into Britain but treat those brave men who've fought for the crown since the days of empire like ****. Brown should hang his head in shame.
View From The Top Posted 30 April, 2009 Posted 30 April, 2009 Serve the nation in the armed forces and risk your life should mean automatic right to residency. If they were a illiterate peasant from rural ****stan they'd have got in no problem.
John Boy Saint Posted 30 April, 2009 Posted 30 April, 2009 Serve the nation in the armed forces and risk your life should mean automatic right to residency. If they were a illiterate peasant from rural ****stan they'd have got in no problem. Welcome to the United Kingdom where hard work, honesty and loyalty is given a swift kick in the wedding vegetables. All scumbags welcome, come on in, kill our teachers and be sure of failing to be deported as your family rights will be damaged...................!!!!!!!!!!!?! Fight for this country with dignity and honour, and then you can **** back off from whence you came.................. and don't let the door bang on your arse on the way out! Jeez it makes me simmer sometimes!
Greedyfly Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 It really is a complete no brainer though isn't it. I mean opinion isn't even divided on this thread yet our government in their infinite wisdom can't see it. Chumps. Lastly I chuffing love the expression 'wedding vegetables' and will be using it on a more frequent basis. Nice work John Boy.
jeff leopard Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 It really is a complete no brainer though isn't it. I mean opinion isn't even divided on this thread yet our government in their infinite wisdom can't see it. Chumps. Fo Sho. If the knee-jerk Nazi's and tree-loving pinko's on this site can agree whole heartedly, then what the phuq exactly is Labour, a party desperate for some popularity, playing at? Brown is uniting this country the same way Bush united Iraq after the invasion, through a titanic level of ignorance and incompetance.
hypochondriac Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Fo Sho. If the knee-jerk Nazi's and tree-loving pinko's on this site can agree whole heartedly, then what the phuq exactly is Labour, a party desperate for some popularity, playing at? Brown is uniting this country the same way Bush united Iraq after the invasion, through a titanic level of ignorance and incompetance. It is very odd. I mean I can't really think of a single reason against letting the Gurkhas in. The government must have known how unpopular their decision would be so why do it?
miserableoldgit Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 It is very odd. I mean I can't really think of a single reason against letting the Gurkhas in. The government must have known how unpopular their decision would be so why do it? Because they know best?
Smirking_Saint Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Just proves that with people power the government has to listen. Makes me laugh that people sit and moan about the government not doing anything properly etc etc. If everyone got together and said enoughs enough then they have to do something. Fair play though, i am not a fan of the immigration we get in this country but believe if you have a true cause and are willing to be 'british' then you should be allowed in, the Ghurka's thoroughly deserve it. Makes me laugh that the government lets in ******s that are just here to bleed us dry and attempt to incite racial hatred and say to the ghurka's 'sorry guys you have not done enough' it was an utter disgrace.
Saintandy666 Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I agree with Nick Clegg, if a person is willing to die for this country, they should be allowed to live in this country. It's ridiculous that it is any other way. Am I correct in my understanding that the gurkhas could be stopped soon anyway? As the new communist government of nepal finds it insulting?
saintwarwick Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 The treatment of the Gurkhas is disgusting. We let everyone else into Britain but treat those brave men who've fought for the crown since the days of empire like ****. Brown should hang his head in shame. Agreed 100%, this government has let every man and his dog into this country except for soldiers who have fought for our country. What has the government got against these brave men? It should not have come to this in the first place if these soldiers were allowed the freedom to live in this country once their service had finished going back to when they first become part of the British army. On a lighter note I saw this text in the star today: "Bhurkas out Gurkhas in"
Amesbury Saint Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I agree with Nick Clegg, if a person is willing to die for this country, they should be allowed to live in this country. Also given that the army is short of soldiers, we should be recruiting more of them. Fine soldiers.
Handyman Posted 7 May, 2009 Posted 7 May, 2009 It makes me ashamed to be British. The Gurkhas should be first in the queue.
jeff leopard Posted 7 May, 2009 Posted 7 May, 2009 On a lighter note I saw this text in the star today: "Bhurkas out Gurkhas in" Do you often find that racist headlines lighten your day? Lest we forget, some of the people wearing bhurkas in this country are the children or grand-children (or great-great-grandchildren) of men who fought for Britain in WW1 and 2, purely because we were occupying their country at the time. These people deserve your respect too.
Clapham Saint Posted 7 May, 2009 Posted 7 May, 2009 It makes me ashamed to be British. The Gurkhas should be first in the queue. TBF they shouldn't even have to queue.
Block 18 Posted 7 May, 2009 Posted 7 May, 2009 Just love to see politicians squirm, Joanna Lumley met Phill Woolas, immigration secretary today, he does not look comfortable http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8037181.stm
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now