Wonder what planet Nick Robinson lives on? Have you read his most recent blog post in which he relates how the news has just reached him that Gordo has lost the Commons vote over the Gurkhas. (The last time such a thing happened it was Sunny Jim in the death throes of his administration back in 1979) However Nick goes on to say “It is proof, if any were needed, that away from the economy the prime minister is consistently misjudging issues. “
Did I hear that right? Robinson is plainly implying that on the economy, the single biggest issue for most of the electorate, Brown is judging issues correctly! Is he mad?
Also even in this shameful defeat in the Commons, the BBC subtly tries to save their man by handing all the plaudits to Nick Clegg. So it was the even more left wing than Hard Labour Lib-Dem’s wot saved the day for the Gurkhas – were the Conservatives lost in action?
Toenails is licking bottom for his master again.
On the subject of blogs. Has anyone read the latest pearls of wisdom from Sheena Easton?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/04/is_it_time_to_abolish.html
Talking about the age time bomb. Easton has a few solutions.
“…We could import young people to work and pay tax to support the elderly, but few are advocating substantial increases in immigration right now.
We could encourage young people to breed more, but that is unlikely to work.
We could significantly increase taxes, but that won’t go down well with voters.
Or we could encourage older people to continue working and contributing to the national wealth if they wish to. It is not a complete answer, but it might help….”
But notice what Easton DOESN’T mention.
1. Those of us with private pensions have had them robbed blind by the effing twat McSnot
2. How about cutting taxes and allowing people to keep a little more of the money they earn to put aside for retirement?
3. or perhaps CUT welfare handouts for the idle scum and give the money to the pensioners?
As for importing more young people. Just HOW thick is Sheena? What happens to young people? They get OLD. So you then need to import or create even MORE people to support them in retirement. So all you create is an ever increasing population. That is unsustainable.
Sometimes I’m amazed at how thick the likes of jug ears, toenails and Sheena really are. Is that the best the BBC can come up with?
The vote means nothing. It changes nothing and whats more important, Labour will do nothing to help a group who has sacraficed so much to help this country.
You know the simple fact is that its people exactly like the Gurkhas that you want in this country!
Then again, I guess as these guys arent muslims then labour couldnt care less.
Mailman
Be fair; Nick Clegg and the Liberals have been taking the lead on the Gurkha story. Yes they joined forces with the Tories for the vote, but the Tories weren’t the first ones to back the cause were they? It was the Lib Dems who did.
(and please don’t take that as a sign of support for the dreadful lib dems in any way!)
First time I’ve been proud to be British in rather a long time.
Gordon Brown is either a seriously out of touch individual, or he’s getting seriously bad advice from somewhere.
Looks like he’s really just a one hit wonder via his time in the chancellorship.
Another issue I haven’t seen mentioned yet, MPs are basically prepared to abandon him in the interests of their own political survival at the ballot box.
Sorry, back up there a bit. Why exactly is it that Britain needs Gurkahs? Do we have a shortage of mountain guides?
Some 50% of the Bangladeshi population of immigrants is unemployed. More then 80% of the Somali immigrant population is on Benefits.
After a lifetime of working for the dole, they will be eligible for pensions. Then I suppose we will need to import more Somalis.
Are there employement opportunities for pirates?
Red,
Yes.
Next.
Mailman
Penguin,
Then that it is to the Tories shame!
Iain Dale and Guido cited Clegg’s pivotal contribution to the Gurkha defeat. BBC news at ten was quite clear this was a big defeat for Brown, mentioned discontent among Labour backbenchers, and gave lots of airtime to Lumley, Clegg and Cameron.
Sorry, back up there a bit. Why exactly is it that Britain needs Gurkahs? Do we have a shortage of mountain guides?
Red Lepond, Why don’t you ask that question to a Ghurka face to face?
Incidentally the Conservative grass roots has been campaigning for equality for the Ghurkas for many years, as have quite a few within the parliamentary party. Many in the British Legion as well (my dad for one)
Red Lepond:
dear god, you are a tedious nulab stooge , aren’t you?
Red lepond:
‘Why exactly is it that Britain needs Gurkahs? Do we have a shortage of mountain guides?’
We don’t need non English speaking Paki muslims, but they have no problem getting in!!
Idiot lefie fuckwit.
I suspect it was a deliberate decision between Clegg & Cameron to let the Lib Dems lead on the Gurkha vote. Many of the Labour MPs who voted against the Government wouldn’t have done so had it been a Conservative motion. So it is perhaps unfair to say it is to the Tories shame.
This goes back to the meeting of the three party leaders to agree second home expense allowances following GB’s grimacing announcement on YouTube. By all accounts GB lost it and I think Cameron & Clegg were so shocked by his behaviour that they realise he has to go, and have an informal pact to hasten that day.
Just a theory, interested to know what others think.
Mailman 11:44
Yes, they are not Muslims and unlikely to to vote Labour, so Brown wants to stop them coming.
He has no principle, humanity or morality.
At his very core there is nothing. A truly revolting creature.
By the way, I also liked the comment here a few days ago that his face is looking increasingly like a smacked bottom !
Flapjack 8:09
Let’s hope that is a sign that the BBC are going to stop backing Brown. There have been other signs recently.
I guess the BBC can see which way the wind is blowing and and want to blow with it.
Martin
I am usually able to decrypt your esoteric nicknames for characters in the ongoing farce which is the BBC and this government, but “toenails” for Nick Robinson has got me foxed ?
Please enlighten.
Brown on several occasions has been able to deflect criticism of his YouTube expenses announcement as being Luddite-type carping. Mandelson used the same line without challenge when “interviewed” by Naughtie on this am’s Today.
It fell to Robinson, later in the programme, to point out, for the benefit of those paying insufficient attention, that the objections to Brown’s YouTube were based on his unilateral “solution” to MP’s expenses, contrary to his claim on gaining office that Parliament would be th first to hear policy proposals.
It would have been better if Naughtie had attempted to put Mandelson on the spot, rather than Mandelson make his unopposed announcements.
Naughtie lost all credibility years ago –he is an expensive joke as a broadcaster.
His verbose musings must cease
David Vance:
‘Then that it is to the Tories shame!’
absolutely. I read in the Independent today that Brown was complaining that the Gurkhas would cost £1.4 billion. And this from someone who has spent over £150 billion bailing out failing banks….good time to find principles isn’t it?
Grant | 30.04.09 – 10:46 am | #
I understand Nick Robinson is called “Toenails” because he’s so far up Gordon Brown’s backside, that’s all you can see of him.
Having said that, he seemed unusually harsh on Today this morning, saying GB had lost his authority and could be insulted by foreign politicians as he was a man on the slide.
Roland 1:22
Thanks for that, I am sure Martin will confirm.
FFPC 12:57
I don’t know where Brown got his £1.4 billion, but we know from 12 years of watching him that he is a pathological liar.
I would guess it is based on:-
1. Every single Gurkha and there families coming.
2. Pensions upgraded to UK levels, state pension and/or full social security entitlements including dependents.
Whatever it is coming from Brown, you know it will be cheating.
He really is the pits.
their families !
Nick Robinson is no Friend of Gordon, and never has been. He’s fed up with Mr. Brown’s leadership now, but even though he was a Young Conservative, I still see Robinson preferring Labour in power over Cameron-led Tories.
In this particular post of his, I read it that Robinson thinks Brown is still making some shrewd political judgments about the economy, not that he’s necessarily making the right decisions for the economy itself. Robinson jumped right on the 50p rate as soon as Darling spoke the words. As a political hack, Robinson sees that a solid populist/political judgment, unrelated to its value as an economic policy. At least, that’s how I read it.
I’d still like to know just how much Robinson’s recent ability to speak very harshly about Mr. Brown has to do with Damian McBride’s exit. It seems like Peston is still getting the briefs from No. 10, but Robinson isn’t.
In any case, today Robinson says that Gordon Brown has lost his authority as leader. Instead of the Tory split he (Robinson) was hoping for over the 50p rate, he’s going to get another Labour power struggle.
I guess this means it’s time for him to team up with Polly Toynbee again about a change in leadership.
a labour power struggle would be good fun.
who would win it though? Johnson is probably considering popular, Milliband maybe too – though both could be portrayed as lightweight. Harmann would run for it, but she wouldnt get it.
I would personally love to see Mandy give it a shot – as the politician I despise the most, it would be awesome to see the press slaughter him if he ran for leadership. He wouldn’t stand of course, no one would want to right now – the ship is sinking, and I doubt anyone wants to command a vessel that is locked into a doomed course. Except the current PM that is.
I’m still not hearing what skills these pensionable Gurkhas will be bringing to Britain. Anyone? The only point proffered so far in their favour is that they aren’t Muslims. By that logic we should let in a billion Chinkies and a billion Hindus.
What is with the largesse of white people?
Of course Grukhas represent everything that Zanulabour finds hateful. They are as a whole honourable hard working individuals who have earned their citizenship and earned the respect of the British people fighting pointless wars instigated by the Labour party.
Earned it, unlike two million ileagal immigrants and 1 million ‘asylum seekers’ (anyone notice how that term has been airbrushed by the BBC?) who have had citizenship, benefits and ‘respect’ handed to them along with the pamphlet telling them to fill out their vote labour postal ballots (up to a maximum of 512 per ‘household’)over the last 12 years.
Britain was an honourable country at one time. These men have escaped from poverty by serving the nation in extreme circumstances.
Sorry, but British citizenship isn’t some prize that should be thrown about like confetti because someone is honorable and hard-working. If it were, you’d probably have even more eligible candidates than the 2 billion I suggested.
Stop patronising these little brown people and admit the truth: they join the British army for reasons of naked self-interest: good job, good pay, nice uniform and generous pension.
Red Lepond 2:45
But British citizenship is thrown about like confetti if the government thinks the people will vote Labour and they know that most Gurkhas won’t. Also this lousy government hates the military anyway.
It is not because they are honourable or hardworking. It is because they SERVED.
Huge difference.
The Gurkha vote under discussion is a drop in the ocean. Remember that we’re only talking about Gurkhas who retired before 1997, so there’ll be a stream of Gurkhas eligible for British residency in perpetuity.
I also disagree that these people would be overwhelmingly Conservative supporters. Not to mention their children and their children’s children.
Conservative hopes for right-leaning non-white immigrant groups is on the same level of wishful thinking as the Republicans and ‘family-values’ Hispanics.
Then we have to hope that perhaps they might be intelligent enough not to vote Labour.
It seems the Labour party are up to their usual trick of getting into power when the economy is flourishing then destroying it whilst they themselves benefit (eg the Blairs)
The Conservatives then have to fix the broken economy and historically get blamed for all the cuts.
What an idiotic system!!
From the point of view of most non-European immigrants, who almost certainly correctly perceive that Labour are more likely to continue to i)be favourable to future immigration ii)more favourable in their treatment of existing immigrants, voting Labour could be considered the rational and intelligent course of action.
Most so-called conservatives just don’t have a clue about how mass immigration to Britain is going to change the social and political fabric of this country. Heads down and hope for the best seems to be their default approach.
Red Lepond 12:05
Why would any Gurkha vote Labour. They are not stupid people. Have you ever met one ?
It will be fascinating to see how al-beeb covers the predicted disintegration of Labour in the June 4 local and Euro contests. Will it be the usual ‘the king has no clothes’ format? Or will they go in Justin Webb style and lick posteriors in the teeth of defeat?
Hey what is this silly word verification on your new sight? Is it some anti moron facility?
It will be fascinating to see how al-beeb covers the predicted disintegration of Labour in the June 4 local and Euro contests. Will it be the usual ‘the king has no clothes’ format? Or will they go in Justin Webb style and lick posteriors in the teeth of defeat?
Hey what is this silly word verification on your new sight? Is it some anti moron facility?
It will be fascinating to see how al-beeb covers the predicted disintegration of Labour in the June 4 local and Euro contests. Will it be the usual ‘the king has no clothes’ format? Or will they go in Justin Webb style and lick posteriors in the teeth of defeat?
Hey what is this silly word verification on your new sight? Is it some anti moron facility?
The BBC will report anything less that 45% for the Conservatives as a disappointing result for them. The “narrative” will be the Tories not getting the level of votes that the opinion polls suggest they will.
The BBC will report anything less that 45% for the Conservatives as a disappointing result for them. The “narrative” will be the Tories not getting the level of votes that the opinion polls suggest they will.
The BBC will report anything less that 45% for the Conservatives as a disappointing result for them. The “narrative” will be the Tories not getting the level of votes that the opinion polls suggest they will.
The BBC will report anything less that 45% for the Conservatives as a disappointing result for them. The “narrative” will be the Tories not getting the level of votes that the opinion polls suggest they will.